Wednesday, August 13, 2014

LEARNING IN A DIGITAL WORLD

In an educational world full of regimentation, memorization, worksheets, closed ended projects and a variety of standardized testing, when did we lose focus in regards to the importance of play in a child’s development?  Over the years working with children I have come to the realization that defining play is not an easy task.  I see play as a behavior, a process, and as an approach to a task (Sheridan, 2011).  I also see play as the most productive and enjoyable activity in which children undertake.  Play is considered universal since it is apparent in every part of the world and has been for thousands of years (Berger, 2009).  Child-initiated play lays the foundations of learning.  Through play, children learn to interact with others, to recognize and solve problems, and to feel the sense of mastery that results.  Basically, play helps children make sense of and find their own place in the physical and social world (Alliance for Childhood, 2005).

When I first began to study the different theories of childhood (i.e. Dewey, Montessori, Erikson, Piaget, and Vygotsky) my curiosity was piqued and I continued to research further into the theories which interested me.  The theories by Piaget and Vygotsky concerning play were among my favorites to research.  In my field of early child care – specifically in the licensed home child cares – I see game-based learning becoming more of a focus.  Piaget believed that play was important as it is a positive avenue for learning (Mooney, 2000).  He believed that children make sense of the objects and activities that surround them when they engage in symbolic play.  He believed that children begin to understand how different objects work and what these objects are meant to do as they experiment (play) through trial and error (Mooney, 2000).  Their time spent experimenting (playing) uses repetition and this information then helps to increase their understanding of the world around them (Mooney, 2000).  Vygotsky believed children learn extensively while playing.  He also believed that language and developmental skills build on each other.  While children are engaged in play they use a constant stream of language, determine conditions while engaged in make-believe, discuss roles, objects, and directions (Mooney, 2000).  They also learn from each other about other situations and ideas which they are unfamiliar with or have not yet engaged in.  Vygotsky believed that this type of interaction contributed to the children’s building of knowledge and to their learning (Mooney, 2000).

References

Alliance for Childhood, C. D. (2005). Time for play, every day: It's Fun – and fundamental.        
          Alliance for Childhood.

Berger, K. S. (2009). In The developing person through childhood. New York: Worth.

Mooney, C. G. (2000). Theories of childhood: An introduction to Dewey, Montessori, Erikson,   
          Piaget and Vygotsky (pp. 62-63,83). St. Paul, MN: Redleaf Press.

Sheridan, M. D., Howard, J., & Alderson, D. (2011). Play in early childhood: from birth to six     
          years. London: Routledge.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Blogs I posted to:
anitaboseman.wordpress.com
travalper.blogspot.com
learningtheoryedu7105.wordpress.com

Tuesday, August 5, 2014

NEW TECHNOLOGIES

“The ARCS model is a problem solving approach to designing 
the motivational aspects of learning environments
to stimulate and sustain students’ motivation to learn.”

                                                               ~  Keller (1983, 1984, 1987)

Keller’s ARCS Model of Motivational Design has four steps for promoting and sustaining motivation in the learning process.  These steps are:  attention, relevance, confidence, and satisfaction (learning-theories, n.d.).  Each of these steps is part of a sequential process.  The first step is to gain the attention of the learners and to engage them (Driscoll, 2005).  The second step is to demonstrate the benefits of the technology to each individual.  In other words, show the individuals why they should learn this new technology.  The third step is to build confidence.  In other words work with the individuals to be more confident in their ability to learn the new technology.  The fourth step, according to Driscoll (Driscoll, 2005), is the payoff.  The payoff will be when each individual feels a sense of satisfaction that will allow for a continuing desire to learn.

When I read this assignment, the first situation involving technology that I thought of was when the state was implementing the Quality Rating and Improvement System (QRIS) grant program (QRIS, n.d.).  The entire application for this grant was online.  There were multiple child care providers who either did not know how to use a computer and therefore refused to apply; English was their second language; or their technological skills were not enough to allow them to work through the application process.  To add to this, since this was a competitive grant, other providers were not allowed to assist others.  The meetings that were held by the state of Massachusetts in order to assist with questions were awful to attend.  Individuals were so frustrated with the system and the whole process that these meetings were unproductive.  To this day I feel sorry for the administrators of the grant during this time.  They really had no idea how to help or to motivate the child care owners and providers into working with them in order to successfully apply for this grant.

In this scenario it would be important to gain the owner/providers’ attention.  This could be done by effective communication (i.e., contacting the owners/providers and explaining what the QRIS program is about).  Once the owners/providers’ attention has been gained, it would be important to demonstrate the technology is a concise manner that everyone could understand (i.e. even those who are not familiar with the use of computers).  The hardest part in this scenario would be finding ways for those struggling to gain confidence.  This confidence could be gained by the use of mentors who volunteer to assist those in need of extra assistance.  Last, would be the satisfaction of seeing the grant paperwork all digitally submitted.  Once this is done (and it is a long process) the individuals would be rewarded for their hard work and perseverance by receiving the grant to improve a variety of areas in their child care businesses.

References

Arcsmode.ipower.com. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.arcsmodel.com/#!arcs-
          model/c1wm1

ARCS Model of Motivational Design (Keller) | Learning Theories. (n.d.). Retrieved from  
          http://www.learning-theories.com/kellers-arcs-model-of-motivational-design.html

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

Keller, J. M. (1983). Motivational design of instruction. In C. M. Reigeluth
          (Ed.),Instructional-design theories and models: An overview of their current status.
          Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Keller, J. M. (1984). The use of the ARCS model of motivation in teacher training. In K.
          Shaw & A. J. Trott (Eds.), Aspects of Educational Technology Volume XVII: staff
          Development and Career Updating. London: Kogan Page.

Keller, J. M. (1987). Development and use of the ARCS model of motivational
          design.Journal of Instructional Development, 10(3), 2 – 10.

Quality Rating and Improvement System (QRIS). (n.d.). Retrieved from
          http://www.mass.gov/edu/birth-grade-12/early-education-and-care/provider-and-
          program-administration/quality-rating-and-improvement-system-qris.html

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

Blogs I commented on were:

anitaboseman.wordpress.com
travalper.blogspot.com
learningtheoryedu7105.wordpress.com

Wednesday, July 23, 2014

CONNECTIVISM

 
 

“Learning is the creation and removal of connections between the
entities, or the adjustment of the strengths of those
connections. A learning theory is, literally, a theory describing
how these connections are created or adjusted.”
 

                                                      ~  Stephen Downes
                                                                         (http://www.connectivism.ca/)
 

“According to Baker (2012), “Defining connectivism isn’t really hard to do.  Simply sit down at your computer and share – something, anything – with someone else.  One word, share.”  I grew up assisting my father by typing various computer programs for him as he wrote the code.  I bought my first home computer in 1994 and was amazed at what I could do with it.  I had a lot of fun incorporating the living books available at the time as well as accessing the internet for the first time.  I remember the dial-up speed that I thought was so great then but now realize just how slow it actually was. 
 

This being said, it still amazes me how my learning network has changed over the years.  How has my network changed the way I learn?  I went from completing all of my paperwork for my licensed home child care in paper form and asking questions via the land based phone to having the ability to ask questions via email or through social media such as Facebook or Twitter.  If I need to do research for a project all I have to do is go to the university library or other scholarly sites on line.  I no longer need to get into my vehicle and drive to the local library.  I also am able to use a lot of various technologies in my everyday curriculum with the children enrolled in my child care.  If I have a question or am in need of further information – all I have to do is send an email, log into a website for live help, use blogs or wikis.  The list is always changing depending on the day and what I am doing that particular day with the children or with my own studies.  My favorite tools at this moment that best facilitate learning for me are listed in my mind map photo above.  These tools can change day-by-day as my educational journey continues along with my everyday life as a business owner and foster parent.
 

References
 

Baker, Thomas (2012-02-20).  Connectivism for EFL teachers: A theory of learning for a digital

          age (Kindle Location 91).  Kindle Edition.
 

Connectivism. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.connectivism.ca/

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

Blogs I commented on were:

anitaboseman.wordpress.com
travalper.blogspot.com

 

 



Tuesday, July 8, 2014

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

Wednesday, June 25, 2014

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
 

Wednesday, June 11, 2014

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   
 
- - - - - - - - - - - -
 
Blogs I posted comments to
 
anitaboseman.wordpress.com
travalper.blogspot.com
wendiledford.wordpress.com
joanierice.weebly.com
 
 

Tuesday, February 11, 2014

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: