COLLABORATION

After viewing the assigned media “The new power of collaboration” with Howard Rheingold, I do believe that humans have a basic instinct to “interact and work as a group.”  Baumeister (2012), states “People have a basic need to belong.  They are motivated to form and maintain social relationships.”  Baumeister (2012), continues by stating “Of course people like to be connected to other people, by and large.  Yet this simple idea led in many unexpected directions.  Its influence on cognition, emotion, and behavior is extensive.  Moreover, it raises important basic questions about human nature, culture, gender, emotion, and how the human psyche functions.” 

 

Ertmer (1993), states “Because of the emphasis on mental structures, cognitive theories are usually considered more appropriate for explaining complex forms of learning (reasoning, problem-solving, information-processing) than are those of a more behavior perspective.  However, it is important to indicate at this point that the actual goal of instruction for both of these viewpoints is often the same: to communicate or transfer knowledge to the students in the most efficient, effective manner possible.  Two techniques used by both camps in achieving this effectiveness and efficiency of knowledge transfer are simplification and standardization.  That is, knowledge can be analyzed, decomposed, and simplified into basic building blocks.  Knowledge transfer is expedited if irrelevant information is eliminated.  For example, trainees attending a workshop on effective management skills would be presented with information that is “sized” and “chunked” in such a way that they can assimilate and/or accommodate the new information as quickly and as easily as possible.”                        

Tam (2000), states “The constructivist perspective supports that learners learn through interaction with others. Learners work together as peers, applying their combined knowledge to the solution of the problem. The dialogue that results from this combined effort provides learners with the opportunity to test and refine their understanding in an ongoing process.”  Laney (1990) reported that “computers were effective in developing higher-order thinking skills, including defining problems, judging information, solving the problems, and drawing appropriate conclusions. The computer can serve in the process of information gathering, inquiry, and collaboration, not merely as a vestige of direct instruction with its reliance on integrating technology in the existing curriculum (Rice & Wilson, 1999). Technology tools that aid in case-based learning include various types of simulation and strategy software/CD-Roms, video discs, multimedia/hypermedia, and telecommunications (e-mail and Internet).”   

In a recent meta-analysis of distance and online learning, Bernard et al. (2009) quantitatively verified the importance of three types of interaction: among students, between the instructor and students, and between students and course content (Abrami, et., al.). Abrami, et., al. (2011), states “Not surprisingly, the major conclusion from Bernard et al. (2009) was that designing interaction treatments into DE courses, whether to increase interaction with the material to be learned, with the course instructor, or with peers impacts positively on student learning. But are even larger and more consistently positive effects possible? It may be that the presence of the interaction conditions in the reviewed studies functioned in exactly the way they were intended, so that the estimates of the effects were fairly accurate.”  The document URL is:

http://ezp.waldenulibrary.org/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/880032148?accountid=14872

When doing a search for professional blogs concerning technology and collaboration, I came across the Common Classroom: The Common Sense Education Blog.  One of the postings in this blog addressed the topic of how technology can encourage student collaboration (https://www.commonsensemedia.org/educators/blog/how-technology-can-encourage-student-collaboration).  I found it interesting when the author stated “The theory behind the move to use technology to expand collaboration relies on both social science and recent developments in cognitive science that help us better understand the learning process. In 2004, the National Academy of Sciences published the seminal book How People Learn, which integrates cognitive science with recommended learning environments.”  After reading the blog posts I began to think how I could add more technology to my own curriculum in my licensed home child care.

Definitely food for thought.

References 

Abrami, P. C., Bernard, R. M., Bures, E. M., Borokhovski, E., & Tamin, R. M. (2011).

          Interaction in distance education and online learning: Using evidence and theory to improve

          practice.  Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 23(2-3), 82-103.

          doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12528-011-9043-x

 

Baumeister, R. F. (2012). Need-to-belong theory. Handbook of theories of social psychology: Volume Two, 121-140.

Ertmer, P. A., & Newby, T. J. (1993). Behaviorism, cognitivism, constructivism: Comparing        

          critical features from an instructional design perspective. Performance Improvement 

          Quarterly, 6(4), 50–71.

How Technology Can Encourage Student Collaboration. (n.d.). Retrieved from            

          https://www.commonsensemedia.org/educators/blog/how-technology-can-encourage-student-

          collaboration

Laney, D. (1990). Microcomputers and the social studies. OCSS Review, 26, 30-37.

Rheingold, H. (2008, February). Howard Rheingold on collaboration [Video file]. Retrieved       

          from http://www.ted.com/talks/howard_rheingold_on_collaboration.html

Tam, M. (2000).  Constructivism, instructional design, and technology: Implications for   

          transforming distance learning.  Retrieved from http://www.ifets.info/journals/3_2/tam.html

- - - - - - - - - -

 Blogs I posted to:

anitaboseman@wordpress.com

http://travalper.blogspot.com.br/

learningtheoryedu7105.wordpress.com

COGNITIVISM AS A LEARNING THEORY

“It seems to me that each _ism is offering

something useful without any of them being

complete or stand alone in their own right.”

                                                                        ~  Kapp (2007) 

Gardner (1985) defines cognitive science “as a contemporary, empirically based effort to answer long-standing epistemological questions – particularly those concerned with efforts to explain human knowledge.”   

Driscoll (2005) states, “According to the cognitive information processing view, the human learner is conceived to be a processor of information in much the same way a computer is.”  Driscoll (2005) continues by stating “When learning occurs, information is input from the environment, processed and stored in memory, and output in the form of some learned capability.”  From a cognivist’s point of view knowledge is acquired through an interaction with sense information as an active agent.  Cognivist’s believe that our minds are what frames experience and perception.  They also believe our minds provide potential boundaries for knowledge based on its innate construction and capacity (Reynlolds, et al, 1996, pg. 97).

Cognitive theory became more widely accepted in place of behaviorist theory in the 1970s after the influence of cognitive science began to make itself known in the educational technology field.  This awareness began when publications that focused on the cognitive view of learning and its application began to find their way into the educational technology field (i.e. Atkinson, 1976) (Saettler, 2004). 

The more I am exposed to the different theories of education the more I cannot seem to pick just one that I feel is the best fit for me as an educator.  Kapp (2007) states in his blog that “We need to take pieces from each school of thought and apply it effectively because Cognitivism does not explain 100% how humans process information and neither does Constructivism or Behaviorism.  What we need to is take the best from each philosophy and use it wisely to create solid educational experiences for our learners.”  I also have to agree with Kerr (2007) when he states “What I have noticed is that these _isms do not stand still.  They evolve, they listen to criticism and move on.  I’ve also noticed that learning theorists, who have a different favorite _ism to mine, might still come up with significant findings in their empirical studies that I find hard to reject or ignore.”

Maybe someday in the future I will be able to pick one _ism and advocate for it.  However, today is not that day.  I am the type of person who needs to do my research before deciding on taking a stance on any issue.  The choice of an _ism is no different.

 

References

Gardner, H. (1985). The mind’s new science.  New York, NY: Basic Books.

Irby, B. J., Brown, G., Lara-Alecio, R., & Jackson, S. (2013). Cognitivism: Ways of knowing. In The

          handbook of educational theories (pp. 105-113). Charlotte, NC: Information Age   Pub.

Kapp, K. (2007, January 2). Out and about: Discussion on educational schools of thought [Web   log

          post]. Retrieved from http://www.kaplaneduneering.com/kappnotes/index.php/2007/01/out-     

          and-about-discussion-on-educational/

Kerr, B. (2007, January 1). _isms as filter, not blinker [Web log post]. Retrieved from            

          http://billkerr2.blogspot.com/2007/01/isms-as-filter-not-blinker.html

Reynolds, R. E., Sinatra, G. M., & Jetton, T. L. (1996). Views of knowledge acquisition and            

          representation:  A continuum from experience centered to mind centered. Educational            

          Psychologist, 31(2), 93-104.

Saettler, L. P. (2004).  The evolution of American educational technology. Englewood, CO:

          IAP, Information Age Publishing.

Tomic, W. (1993). Behaviorism and cognitivism in education.  A Journal of Human Behavior.  Vol

          30, Pp. 34-46.

- - - - - - - - - -

 

Blogs I posted comments to

 

anitaboseman.wordpress.com

travalper.blogspot.com

joanierice.weebly.com

 

MODULE 1 - BLOG ASSIGNMENT: LEARNING AND INSTRUCTION IN A DIGITAL WORLD

“When we look at how people describe this field, educational technology

is the umbrella term.  It’s a generic way of talking about all the different flavors by

which we think about using tools, media, applications, environments in learning and teaching.”

                                                                                                          ~ Dr. Chris Dede (Laureate, 2008b)

What are your beliefs about how people learn? 

I believe that a person’s learning style and how they learn is as individual as the person.  Each of us prefers different ways of learning.  Some people are visual learners (spatial).  Other people may be an aural learner (auditory-musical); verbal learner (linguistic); physical learner (kinesthetic); logical learner (mathematical); social learner (interpersonal); or a solitary learner (intrapersonal) (learning-styles-online.com).

A person’s learning style influences and guides the way we learn.  Learning styles also change the way we internally represent experiences, the way we recall information, and even the words we choose (learning-styles-online.com).  Research also shows us that each learning style uses different parts of the brain.  By involving more of the brain during learning, we remember more of what we learn.

 

Siemens (2008), discusses the most common theories of learning in his paper.  He lists these theories as:

 

1.         Behaviorism:  Behaviorism asserts that learning is a “black box” activity, in that we do not know what occurs inside the learner, focuses its efforts on managing external, observable behaviors, and finds much of its existence in objectivism (Siemens, 2008).

2.         Cognitivism:  Cognitivism spans a continuum from learning as information processing (a computer model) at one end, to learning as reasoning and thinking on the other, finds much of its identity in pragmatism (Siemens, 2008).

3.         Constructivism:  Constructivism covers a broad spectrum of research overlapping with cognitivism, contends that learning involves each individual learner making sense and constructing knowledge within his or her own context; it finds its foundation in interpretivism (Siemens, 2008).

What is the purpose of learning theory in educational technology?

Semple (2000), states “The use of educational technologies, as much as the application of particular theories of learning, is a matter of fitness for the purpose.  There is no one approach which is necessarily better than another and there is no one medium that should be applied in preference to another just for the sake of it.  A teacher well versed in the various theories of learning, with a thorough knowledge of his or her students and a high level of competence in using and applying a range of educational technologies, will create appropriate learning environments.  Many needs, often competing, have to be met including those of students, curriculum frameworks, assessment regimes and education systems.  This demands a high level of accomplishment of teachers, which can only be expected if appropriate pre-service training is given and ongoing professional development is the norm”.

In my own experience (i.e. owning/running a licensed home child care for 24 plus years), I assess each child individually in order to learn how each child learns.  In turn the curriculum focuses on elements of learning that fits each child.

References

Laureate Education, Inc. (Producer). (2008b). Educational technology defined.  [Video   

            webcast].  Retrieved from https://class.waldenu.edu/webapps/portal/frameset.jsp?tab_
            tab_group_id=_2_1&url=%2Fwebapps%2Fblackboard%2Fexecute%2
            Flauncher%3Ftype%3DCourse%26id%3D_3463077_1%26url%3D
 

Overview of learning styles. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.learning-styles-online.com/overview/

Semple, A. (2000). Learning theories and their influence on the development and use of educational

             technologies. Australian Science Teachers Journal, 46(3), 21−27.

Siemens, G. (2008, January 27). Learning and knowing in networks: Changing roles for    educators

            and designers. Paper presented to ITFORUM. Retrieved from   

            http://itforum.coe.uga.edu/Paper105/Siemens.pdf

 

- - - - - - - - - - - -

 

Blogs I posted comments to

 

anitaboseman.wordpress.com

travalper.blogspot.com

wendiledford.wordpress.com

joanierice.weebly.com

 

 

FINAL PROJECT VIDEO - VIRTUAL WORLDS

Here is my project.  I apologize for it being a little late.  As you will hear my voice is still not quite back to normal after my surgery.  I hope you enjoy it.



Here is the link for my annotations, story board, etc...  Due to time constraints the narration on the video is not exactly like the storyboard.

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B72khcbcAhVOZ29qTzRTcUVSVE0/edit

__________________________________________________________________________________

Video Projects I left replies for:

 

http://sportz75.wordpress.com

http://collisgrisby.blogspot.com/

http://brandyhiett.wordpress.com/

http://adrianwilliams.blog.com/

http://techdiva29.wordpress.com/
 



STATIC VS. DYNAMIC TECHNOLOGIES

“As technology becomes integrated into the learning environment,

the instructor or instructional designer must make decisions regarding which

technology to use to achieve specific learning outcomes.  Certainly, many

criteria must be considered when selecting specific technology for a

given lesson, but the paramount decision should be the capability of

chosen technology to support knowledge building, which

indicates the need for interactivity.”

 

                                                                        ~ Leslie Moller (2008)

 

          Moller (2008) states “Technology can be conceptualized along a continuum of static to dynamic”.  Examples of static technologies include:  podcasts; video casts; Web pages, and text.  Each of these technologies are efficient at broadcasting information.  However, each does little to assist the student to build their own knowledge.  Static technologies allow learners to capture information (Moller, 2008).

 

          Moller (2008) states “With a move toward the middle of the continuum we often see technologies or learning approaches that includes, wikis, blogs, discussion boards, chats, and other similar approaches. The middle-of-the-road approaches all learners to interact with the content.”  Learners need to analyze what their classmates are contributing.  They also need “to consider and compare these ideas to an existing knowledge representation or other information, and to synthesize and present responses that reflect the initiating idea.”  In this case new knowledge is created through analysis and argumentation (Moller, 2008).

 

          Moller (2008) states “The dynamic end of the interactivity continuum includes tools that involve learners on a much deeper cognitive level.  These tools can include virtual simulations and gaming, multi-user environments, and mind tools.”  Jonassen (2006, pg. 21) states “mind tools represent a constructivist approach towards using computers (or any other technology, environment, or activity) to engage learners in representing, manipulating, and reflecting on what they know, not reproducing what someone tells them.  When a mind tool is used, knowledge is constructed by the learner, not provided by the teacher.”  This being said a deeper understanding of what is being taught will be achieved (Moller, 2008).

 

          At this point in my academic journey I see myself between the middle and the dynamic end of the interactivity continuum.  I say this because I have spent two master degree programs in the middle and now see myself working into the dynamic end.  During my last two degree programs we worked with the middle-of-the-road approaches but did not really progress into areas on the dynamic end.  I now see myself progressing towards this with projects that I have been working on (i.e. video projects, etc.).  I see myself steadily moving towards the dynamic end with the more I progress through my current degree program.

References
Jonassen, D. H., (2006).  Modeling with technology: Mindtools for conceptual change. (3rd ed.).
          Uppper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education
Moller, L. (2008). Static and dynamic technological tools.  [Unpublished Paper].

________________________________________________________________________________________________

Blogs I Posted To:

sportz75.wordpress.com

http://brandyhiett.wordpress.com/

 



ENGAGING LEARNERS WITH NEW STRATEGIES AND TOOLS

 

Durrington et al. (2006) notes in order to encourage high student interactivity in an online/distance learning forum, the learning environment must be supportive, open, and respectful.  Ways in which this can be accomplished are: 

- providing a detailed syllabus that clearly defines expectations for the course in general and specific guidelines for each assignment

 

- creating a discussion area where students post their questions and the instructor posts answers

- timeliness in responding to students questions (the tone of the responses is also important from the instructor as well as other students).

 

- instructor-mediated discussions support student interactivity and enhance individual performance and satisfaction.

 

- asking students questions directly related to their postings also encourages more in-depth participation.

- student-moderated discussions (i.e. discussion section of community blog).

 

Anderson (2008) notes the theoretical model developed by Garrison, Anderson, and Archer views the creation of an effective online educational community as involving three critical components.  These components are:  cognitive presence, social presence, and teaching presence (Anderson, 2008). 

When reviewing the component of teaching presence, Anderson (2008) notes teaching presence is an important factor in order to be an effective online instructor.  Critical components needed are:  design and organization, facilitating discourse, and direct instruction.  The process of creating an effective teacher presence begins by providing students with access and motivation (Anderson, 2008).  The instructor begins this process by addressing any technical or social issues that may inhibit participation.  It is also important that students are given the opportunity (and are encouraged) to share information about themselves to create a virtual presence (i.e. introductions in the class café). 

 

Anderson (2008) notes the process continues with the second stage.  In this stage the e-moderator continues to develop online socialization.  Anderson (2008) states this is accomplished by “building bridges between cultural, social, and learning environments.”

 

Anderson (2008) states the process continues with the third stage.  This stage is the information exchange stage which “the teaching task moves to facilitating learning tasks, moderating content-based discussions, and bringing to light student misconceptions and misunderstandings” (Anderson, 2008, p. 359).

 

Anderson (2008 p. 359) states the process continues with the fourth stage.  This stage is knowledge construction “students focus on creating knowledge artefacts and projects that collaboratively and individually illustrate their understanding of course content and approaches.”

 

Anderson (2008, p. 359-360) states the last stage is considered to be the development stage.  In this stage “learners become responsible for their own and their group’s learning by creating final projects, working on summative assignments, and demonstrating the achievement of learning outcomes.”

 

Personally, I see a connection between my own successful experiences with online classes and what the research has shown.  All the tools listed in the graphic organizer above have played a key role in my own successful experiences.  I am now working on my fourth degree in an online/distance learning format.  I have had many more positive experiences versus negative experiences during these degree programs. The positive experiences have the same elements in common (i.e. detailed syllabus, class café, ask the instructor section, discussion boards, group activities, etc.).  The negative experiences are missing the elements of the positive experiences.  Also, because this is my fourth degree in an online/distance learning format, I have also seen the process evolve over the years (approximately between seven and eight years).

 

Johnson & Aragon (2003) states “There seems to be an assumed separation between knowing and doing in education, whereby knowing is valued over doing, and mental activity is valued over physical activity.  However, cognitive theorists have challenged this perspective because the activities through which learning occurs are inseparable from cognition.  In order for online instruction to be successful, some form of learner activity must be included.”

 

References

 

Anderson, T. (Ed.). (2008). The theory and practice of online learning. (2nd ed.). Edmonton, AB: Athabasca University Press.

 

Durrington, V. A., Berryhill, A., & Swafford, J. (2006). Strategies for enhancing student interactivity in an online environment.

 

          College Teaching, 54(1), 190−193.

 

Johnson, S. D., & Aragon, S. R. (2003). An instructional strategy framework for online learning environments. New Directions for

 

          Adult & Continuing Education, (100), 31-43.

 

Siemens, G. (2008, January). Learning and knowing in networks: Changing roles for educators and designers. ITForum.

 _________________________________________________________________________________________

Blogs I posted to:

http://brandyhiett.wordpress.com/

http://sportz75.wordpress.com/

ASSESSING COLLABORATIVE EFFORTS

Palloff and Pratt (2005) note it is challenging when evaluating students in an online course.  They also note that it can be more challenging to explain to the students how the process of evaluation works.  Angelo and Cross (1993) note that it is important for assessment to be embedded in and aligned with the design of the course in order to be effective. 

Palloff and Pratt (2005) note that there are some precautionary measures at the start of the course that is going to involve collaborative work.

- Set the stage for collaboration

- Do not encourage over-or-under-participation

- Intervene in order to minimize frustration and conflict when needed

- Address technical difficulties swiftly

- Provide instruction and information about conflict management and conflict resolution

- Maximize participation through group composition

- Be supportive

When I was making the decision whether or not to transfer my credits from a face-to-face learning environment to an online degree program, I had some concerns.  My concerns mainly revolved around how I would fit in with the online learning community.  What if the other students did not want to work with me?  What if I was put into a group where members did not want to participate?  Let’s face facts – the concern when working in groups is the same whether or not the class is face-to-face or online.  We each hope everyone in the group will do their work and participate.  However, in an online environment there are other factors to consider.  In some instances there are time zone issues and communication may break down.  There are also other instances when there may be participation issues (i.e. computer crashes, family obligations, differences in expectations, etc.).

If communication does break down and a student does not want to network or collaborate in a learning community for an online course, what should the other members of the learning community do? 

First I would hope that the group or at least one member of the group would reach out to the group members to get more information about what is happening and if he/she needs any assistance.  Once this line of communication is open, hopefully, as a group, everything will get back on track.  If reaching out and communicating does not work, then it may be time for the instructor to be contacted.  Palloff and Pratt (2005) state “that students often have far more information about the workings of a small group than does the instructor.  If encouraged and guided, students will share that information so that appropriate grading can occur”.  Above all if each member of the group uses the available guidelines there will not be too many issues (i.e. rubrics). 

References

Angelo, T., and Cross, K. P. (1993).  Classroom assessment techniques. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass

Palloff, R. M., and Pratt, K. (2005). Chapter 4: Assessment and evaluation of collaborative work.  

          In collaborating online: Learning together in community. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

___________________________________________________________________________________

Blogs I Posted To

http://brandyhiett.wordpress.com

http://clgrisby.edublogs.org