Module 2 Blog: Cognitive Comparison

The experts agree that instructional design should consist of multiple learning theories to target several dimensions of learning (Kapp, 2007; Kerr, 2007). An underlying grievance with focusing on one theory is that learners do not bring equal insights into the learning context. Therefore, educators should consciously integrate multiple approaches in designing a lesson to ensure all students construct knowledge. For example, behaviorism and cognitivism propose the most efficient manner of knowledge acquisition. Both agree that repetition of a skill is one way to achieve meaningful learning. Although, cognitivism focuses more on the type of activity rather than the behaviorist view of drill and practice (Driscoll, 2005).

Pondering on the recommendations of each strategy, I created a personal mental representation of two students in my classroom. The following chart describes two situations in which a student faces difficulty in Reading. However, one student lacks memorization while the other lacks comprehension. I attempted to use what I have learned to create an instructional plan for each student. Please read and make comments.

Interestingly, both theories also agree on the importance of internalizing information. Yet, experience and research has developed the idea of externalization as the most significant method to understanding new information. The following video clip from George Siemens (2007) discusses externalization of knowledge as the best strategy for facilitating meaningful learning. His notion that students need to express and share knowledge with others in a variety of ways changes traditional views that learning is a remote process. According to Siemens (2007), true knowledge acquisition occurs through social networks where the externalization of thoughts is encouraged and skills of learning are developed.

In my experiences as an early childhood educator, students who express and share ideas through graphic representations and writing are able to apply knowledge in a variety of situations. Without this instructional skill, students are only successful when the experience matches the first acquaintance, Cooperative group tasks such as digital storytelling and wikis allow students to connect with information and accurately create models of knowledge (Talisayon, 2010). If you are not giving your students the opportunity to externalize knowledge, you are decreasing their capacity for learning.

References

Driscoll, M. P. (2005). Psychology of learning for instruction (3rd ed.). Boston: Pearson Education, Inc.

Kapp, K. (2007, January 2). Out and about: Discussion on educational schools of thought. Message posted to http://karlkapp.blogspot.com/2007/01/out-and-about-discussion-on-educational.html

Kerr, B. (2007, January 1). _isms as filter, not blinker. Message posted to http://billkerr2.blogspot.com/2007/01/isms-as-filter-not-blinker.html

Siemens, G. (2007, September 2). The conflict of learning theories with human nature. Video podcast retrieved from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xTgWt4Uzr54

Talisayon, A. (2010, March 25). Series G: “Grawing-and-griting”: Making visible what we are thinking together. Message posted to http://apintalisayon.wordpress.com/

Module 1 - Metaphors of Educators

Siemens (2008) describes four metaphors of educators to argue new models of teaching pedagogy in today’s digital age. “Educator as Master Artist” implies that the instructor offers expert guidance but permits the student to draw knowledge from fellow classmates and authentic experiences. Forming learning networks is the primary role of the “Educator as Network Administrator.” The “Educator as Concierge” brings awareness to resources and guides students as they explore knowledge. Finally, Siemens (2008) notion of “Educator as Curator” presents the most valuable model of instruction. The instructor creates the best learning environment with appropriate resources and activities related to the subject. Students explore and interpret the information with supportive guidance from the instructor.

Of these representations, the educator as curator suggestion speaks the most in regards to educational culture in the digital classroom. The duties of an instructor cannot narrow to one primary task. Instead, the holistic purpose involves creating, managing, supporting, and assessing all facets of knowledge exploration. Learners construct knowledge based on individual exploration and interpretation of information using the prominent avenues of web-based instruction (Williams, 2009). Additionally, students do not need an instructor to create or reinforce connections due to the natural ease of connectivism in today’s digital world (Siemens, 2010). Yet, students do require a structured framework of the learning experience to reduce intellectual frustration and increase likelihood of success. Finally, the educator’s actions must readily engage students in subject material and cautiously facilitate the path of learning.

My haunting question after reading the four models is, “Why is it that experts feel the need to compare my role to the duties of other professional positions?” The roles and responsibilities of a true educator are not comparable to any other person employed by an organization. I say, as an educator, “I AM,” not “I am like,” when describing the special work I do on a daily basis.
However, if I must provide a metaphor, no offense to the experts, I will not use another profession as a means of representing myself. Instead, I suggest “Educator as an Eagle.” This thought came to me as I read a daily devotion from renowned evangelists Joyce Meyer (2009). The eagle, the most majestic of creatures, is the best example to describe the natural characteristics and exemplary work of an educator. The following video describes my thoughts on “Teacher as an Eagle.”

I know it is not the most advanced show in the world. However, I have been teaching my kids how to make media projects, so we worked on this together. They love doing graduate work!

References

Siemens, G. (2010, February 16). Teaching in social and technological networks. Message posted to http://www.connectivism.ca/?p=220

Siemens, G. (2008, January 27). Learning and knowing in networks: Changing roles for educators and designers. Paper presented to ITFORUM. Retrieved from http://it.coe.uga.edu/itforum/Paper105/Siemens.pdf

Meyer, J. (2009, May 14). Sour like an eagle. Message posted to http://www.christianpost.com/article/20090514/soar-like-an-eagle/index.html

Williams, J. (2009, November 23). From teacher to content curator. Message posted to http://authenticlearning.wordpress.com/2009/11/23/from-teacher-to-content-curator/

The Wiki Web Project

Here is my PPT as a video. Let me know if you would like me to post the PPT version.

Thanks! Marci

Final Project: Social Presence

Well, here it is!! I am not the most excited about it, but I gave it my very all. I learned that I would rather talk through written communication because my speech skills need polishing.
Maybe you will learn a little something from it!

Video clips and clipart were obtained from Corel, Animation Factory, and a few were downloaded from Google images. I will post my annotated bibliography in the doc sharing area of our course.

All I can say is Tah-Dah!

Module 5 Blog Discussion

This diagram represents the difference between static and dynamic technologies as discussed in Moller’s (2008) article. Static technologies emphasize content and rely heavily on text applications. These technologies include web 1.0, print, and one-to-one restricted correspondence. On the contrary, dynamic technologies empower learners with interaction with information and social networks to conceptualize real meaning and experience wisdom. Characteristics of dynamic technologies include synchronous communication, problem-based simulations, collaboration tools, web 2.0, and mind tools (Moller, 2008).

As far as my level of familiarity, I am in the middle of the static-dynamic continuum. Static technologies do not provide high levels of interactivity with information to construct knowledge as it relates to my area of work. However, I do rely on my textbooks and journal articles to obtain the majority of content. This is an area that I would like to see improve with more real world applications through conversations with experts and visual representation. Also, static technologies do not promote collaboration with my classmates. These technologies are highly dependent on individual accountability and rarely construct personalization in interaction.

On the other hand, dynamic technologies are new in my technology repertoire. I am beginning to use wikis and blogs to participate in collaboration with peers. I have also recently chatted with classmates through Skype to reflect on class discussions and build a deeper understanding of their content discourse. Although considered middle of the road for many, these technologies are dynamic in the sense that they provide continuous opportunities to recreate information and internalize information (Kirschner & Erkens, 2006).

To move towards a more dynamic approach to learning, I must continue to reflect on information and reconstruct content to gain deeper understanding. As static technologies plagued most of my undergraduate and part of my graduate career, embracing this higher-level thinking has been a real struggle. Yet, the constant risk-taking approaches involving technologies and learning modes unfamiliar to me will supply the best learning experiences that emulate practical situations and behaviors. I am in constant conflict with tradition and innovation but courses such as this one are earning my respect as the best approach for authentic learning.

References

Jonassen, D., Carr, C., & Yueh, H. (1998, March). Computers as mindtools for engaging learners in crtical thinking. [Electronic Verson]. TechTrends, 43(2), 24-32. Retrieved July 31, 2009, from http://www.ecls.ncl.ac.uk/webprimary/elearning/ICT_Tools%5EComputers%20as%20Mindtools%5Earticle%20by%20Jonassen.pdf

Kirschner, P., & Erkens, G. (2006). Cognitive tools and mindtools for collaborative learning. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 35(2), 199-209. Retrieved July 31, 2009, from Academic Search Premier database.

Moller, L. (2008). Static and dynamic tools. [Unpublished Paper].

Slangen, L. (2005). Mind tools contributing to an ICT-rich learning environment for technology education in primary schools. [Electronic Version]. Int. J. Cont. Engineering Education and Lifelong Learning, 15(3-6), 225-239. Retrieved July 31, 2009, from http://dspace.ou.nl/bitstream/1820/608/1/050830IJCEELL%2015(3-6)%20Paper%2008%20Mindtools.pdf

Using mindtools in education. (2005). Retrieved July 31, 2009, from http://thejournal.com/articles/2005/04/01/using-mindtools-in-education.aspx

Engaging Learners With New Strategies and Tools

Click on the picture to see larger view

(Durrington, V., Berryhill, A., Swafford, J., 2006)

(McGreal, R., Elliot, M., 2008)

Engaging Learners Reflection

The graphic organizer published on this week’s blog classifies several strategies and corresponding technological tools according to content, communication, and collaboration tasks within the online environment. This reflection will justify use of these strategies and tools to engage learners and improve the online learning experience.

Content:

The most critical issue regarding content and online learning occurs between distributing learning resources and knowledge acquisition. According to Siemens (2007), the selected artifacts for an online course must be arranged and issued in such a way that learners explore information, reconstruct prior knowledge into new schemata, and engage in public discourse to achieve true wisdom. A number of technologies distribute information including CD-ROM, DVD, and acquired course management software. However, many technologies available free on the internet engage learners including podcast, vodcasts (YouTube), and online journals. Learning is commonly accessible anywhere, anytime with the latest technologies.

Communication:

Not only do students need sufficient learning resources, but they also require engaging dialogue with classmates through asynchronous or synchronous methods of communication. Audio chat technologies, email, and instant messaging provide the opportunity for online learners to provide feedback and challenge viewpoints (Durrington, V., Berryhill, A., & Swafford, J., 2006). Learning occurs when members of the community interact in meaningful conversation a (Moller, L., Harvey, D., Downs, M., & Godshalk, V., n.d.). The social networking sites and tools available on the web support communication in both synchronous and asynchronous contexts. Additionally, personal electronic exchanges facilitate interactive relationships to improve overall course satisfaction. The key to any successful online conversation is timeliness in response to participants (Durrington, V., et al., 2006).

Collaboration:

The final element of engaging learners in the online environment involves active participation in collaborative, problem-based activities. Group activities should include a small number of participants, solve relevant problems, encourage accountability, and facilitate discussion (Durrington, V., et al., 2006). The web offers several tools for collaboration including wikis, blog, and virtual worlds. Wikis enable users to review and edit text to create a collaborative product. Blogs do not allow others to edit content, however, each member may contribute to a asynchronous discussion area to solve problems. Finally, virtual worlds, an innovation that has yet to diffuse in online learning, provides a simulated environment where each participant assumes a role and participates in empirical learning (McGreal, R., & Elliot, M., 2008). Each of these tools facilitates problem-based learning and offers real experience to solving social issues in the environment.

By using familiar and simple tools throughout the online experience, students are prepared to engage in the online environment and focus on collecting and sharing perspectives rather than technicalities. The central goal of any educational program is learning. Although distance education requires multimedia applications for data transfer, the main purpose is to provide an authentic learning experience. These effective strategies and informal tools combine to provide effective student experiences and successful degree programs.

References

Durrington, V., Berryhill, A., Swafford, J. (2006). Strategies for enhancing student interactivity in an online environment. College Teaching, 54(1), 190-193. Retrieved July 15, 2009, from http://ezp.waldenulibrary.org/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=19754742&site=ehost-live&scope=site

McGreal, R., & Elliot, M. (2008). Technologies of online learning (e-learning). In T. Anderson (Ed.) The Theory and Practice of Online Learning (2nd ed., pp. 143-165). Edmonton, AB: AU Press.

Moller, L., Harvey, D., Downs, M., Godshalk, V. (n.d.). Identifying factors that effect learning community development and performance in asynchronous distance education. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 1(4), 293-305. Retrieved July 20, 2009, from http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/custom/portlets/recordDetails/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=EJ621837&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=EJ621837

Siemens, G. (Speaker). (2007). Curatorial teaching. Elluminate recording posted at http://learnonline.wordpress.com/2007/09/20/10-minute-lecture-george-siemens-curatorial-teaching/

Module 3: Collaboration in the Learning Community

Effective instructors in online communities have four major responsibilities including facilitate discussions and activities, model acceptable learning behaviors, participate in the development and preservation of the community, and evaluate student progress (Pallloff & Pratt, 2005). It is possible for students to complete course requirements without instructor involvement, except for the task of assessment. The evaluation process is a critical element for both instructor and student. The instructor must provide fair and challenging assessment while proving adequate student progress. The student must provide evidence of learning to receive acceptance from the instructor using chosen methods of assessment. Therefore, the means of evaluation profoundly affects the online course as it provides the final outcome for success.

The course readings for Module 3 emphasized collaborative assessment as the best approach for online learning communities. The issue in collaborative assessment involves providing individual progress monitoring based on cooperative assignments. Based on Siemens (2008a) analysis, a rating scheme based on individual contributions provides fair and targeted outcomes. This tailors assessment to individual needs by examining the impact of the student’s strengths and weakness on the final product. Davis (2007) discusses the significance of web 2.0 tools in assessing cooperative groups because it allows instructors to continuously assess individual contributions to group projects as well as provide peer assessment and feedback. Individual accountability is determined through tracking edits and additions to web-based software such as wikis and blogs.

This brings us to another issue in collaborative assessment. Students that do not wish to collaborate in online communities present challenges for the learning group and the instructor. The instructor must communicate the “participative pedagogy” at the onset of the course to inform students of the decision to utilize collaborative activities (Siemens, 2008a). Additional help from the instructor includes role-playing activities, assessment models including group and individual efforts, and collaborative awareness. Assessment plans must include rubrics for collaborative awareness to evaluate efforts of interaction within the online community (Siemens, 2008b). Members not contributing to the final product are negatively impacting the group and need to receive assignment to another group or individual form of evaluation.

Students involved with an inactive or intimidated peer should first build trust by openly discussing roles and responsibilities (Siemens, 2008b). If a team member continues to exhibit harmful behaviors towards the group, the instructor must intervene to prevent this humanistic poison from destroying group dynamic and successful outcomes.

References

Davis, V. (2007, October 9). Cooperative learning notes: Day 2. Message posted to http://coolcatteacher.blogspot.com/2007/10/cooperative-learning-notes-day-2.html

Palloff, R., & Pratt, K. (2005). Collaborating online: Learning together in community. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Siemens, G. (2008a). Assessment of Collaborative Learning [DVD]. Laureate Education, Inc.

Siemens, G. (2008b). Learning communities [DVD]. Laureate Education, Inc.