Learning (and Teaching) in a Digital World

In the last decade, my use of technology has become more central to my academic/professional life, and there is no sign of turning back. Initially, the relationship began as a fact-finding facilitating or a content organizational tool. But that role soon expanded and overlapped my my personal interests, tasks and objectives.

In the process of utilizing these tools, I learned efficiencies and have continued to evaluate and hone my skills,  becoming more disciplined in all facets of my life. Factors that are non-negotiable in learning and teaching are  critical thinking, critical listening and willing open-mindedness. Constructivist approaches the likes of Vygotsky's zone of proxminal development, Mayer's cognitive theory of multimedia learning theory and Siemen's connectivsm underpin my teaching and learning philosophy. 


Some resources:
http://web20classroom.blogspot.com/2011/03/quick-list-of-ipad-resources-for.html

Another example: How to use the iPad in the classroom

New Technologies

 
(http://www.flickr.com/photos/rolandlegrand/3010674172/)

As the use of course management platforms has become mainstream, instructors are encouraged and compelled to use them as the medium through which their pedagogy originates. Course materials, contact information, discussion posts, assignments, rubrics, dropboxes and even attendance can be monitored through CMSs, but are all these tools fully integrated is the question.

Of late tools like Elluminate which allow for synchronous and asynchronous communication - video and file sharing, and recordings- are also being utilized as classroom extensions. For every use there is an accompanying technology. To create animation and audio, for example, Ludmila Smirnova (2009) has identified the following tools: "Voki, Yodio, VoiceThread, PodOmatic, Gcast [and] Photostory3."

George Siemens (Laureate, n.d.) notes how part of an instructor’s role is to “assist learners in forming networks,” similarly technology leaders need to do the same for instructors so they can understand how tools such as Elluminate can enhance learning and other classroom functions.

While it is not exactly an uphill battle, technology is not fervently welcomed by all. In some cases, technology can be viewed as a distraction, an obstacle or a hindrance to teaching styles that prefer interactions unencumbered by Smartboards, mobile devices, emails or tweets.

Presented with the possibilities of a system where grades, attendance, discussion, announcements and assignments and any other instructional element are neatly grouped, there is still resistance by those who do not want to conform.  

In this vein, John Keller’s (2000) ARCS- attention (A), relevance (R), confidence (C), and satisfaction (S)-model could be used to engage instructors to improve their understanding of technology and the potential it holds to enhance pedagogy- organization, preparation, execution, engagement and learning.  To allay faculty feelings of inadequacies or fear of obsolescence, use of ARCS is a move toward improving reception and dialogue about technology by exemplifying the power of “user-created aspect of the Web” (Smirnova, 2009, 125)... “Many forward-thinking educators are progressing in this area with the help of other educators in their Personal Learning Networks.”

Sounds like connectivism?

“Relevance results from connecting the content of instruction to important goals of the learners, their past interests, and their learning styles. One traditional way to do this is to relate instructional content to the learners’ future job or academic requirements” (Keller, 2000, p.2). Smirnova (2009) suggests that categorizing e-tools by their functionality can also be useful to teachers as they learn and determine which technological option is most suitable to meet their needs. 

Call it academic freedom or inconformity, the reality is that reasons for adoption teeter based on a delicate balance between preference and necessity.


Smirnova (2009) aptly submits this cautionary node: “The outcome is that the teacher as individual is further disadvantaged in keeping up with their students unless they are willing to swim in the same ocean... The result is that teachers need to both master these new tools if they want to capture their power as pedagogical aides and remain current” (p. 126).



References


Keller, J. (2002). How to integrate learner motivation planning into lesson planning: The ARCS model approach. Retrieved from http://mailer.fsu.edu/~jkeller/Articles/Keller%202000%20ARCS%20Lesson%20Planning.pdf

Laureate Education, Inc. (Producer). (n.d.) Connectivism Learning Theory. (video).


Siemens, G. (2006). Knowing knowledge. Retrieved from http://www.Lulu.com.


Smirnova, L. (2009, December 11). Opening educational and personal horizons with the new emergent technologies. Retrieved from http://www.virtuniv.cz/images/3/3c/Smirnova.pdf

Connectivism Mindmap

Siemen’s (Bayne, 2008) quote “classroom walls have become permeable” captures the spirit of learning for me, as it may for many other people. So “has my network changed the way I learn?” The change is emergent, and not always easy.. As I added to my network, following recommendations, examples, and trends, I also had to consider and learn how this resource web could help me.


The first steps I take when I have questions are a visit to Google or other search engines for articles, blogs, wikis, podcasts, videos (videocasts, teachertube, lectures, youtube, slideshare, etc), white papers, books, and then a library multi-database search.With all this free access to extensive repositories, Siemens (Bayne, 2008) makes an important point about the dilemma concerning information access and credibility. Specifically, he discusses academia’s focus on source authenticity and users' focus and preference toward unencumbered access (no logins, sign ons, passwords) the likes that Wikipedia provides.
 

Digital tools that facilitate learning for me include video and audio podcasts as well as interactive exercises that facilitate skills practice and review. Asynchronous audio streaming, for example, allows me to explore new areas and revisit topics I would like to review or seek clarification. The benefit of audio podcasts is that they can be used at odd times - while driving, during exercise or other activity, whereas video podcasts (while they can be viewed on smartphones and tablets on-the-go)  are bit less mobile.


Reference

Bayne, G. (Producer). (2008, January 29). Connectivism [Audio podcast]. Retrieved from http://www.educause.edu/blog/gbayne/ELIPodcastConnectivism/167445

Learning theory conversation- cognitivism

Learning theory conversations tend to be engaging, thought provoking, while presenting the reader with often conflicting but well-supported and documented viewpoints. In a discussion post about cognitivism, I quoted Bill Kerr (2007) and Karl Kapp (2007) who intricately added to this important and still relevant discussion. Overall, it appears from the thinkers mentioned below that theoretical frameworks are a question of semantics, which opens the door wide open for alternative and multiple schools of thought.

From my discussion post on June 25, 2011 (Salas, 2011):

            Kerr’s (2007) eyebrow raising remarks are valid and share a truth scholars may choose to ignore, that theories and theorist likes we are taught to analyze and cite to support or dispute a work are not absolute correct or incorrect. The practice of citing is important in that it helps readers have frame of reference and starting point. I particularly enjoyed the following comment by Kerr (2007), “I've also noticed that learning theorists, who have a different favourite _ism to mine, might still come up with significant findings in their empirical studies that I find hard to reject or ignore” and lastly, “It seems to me that each _ism is offering something useful without any of them being complete or stand alone in their own right” (Salas, 2011).

            Driscoll (2005) chapters are useful in explaining how theories evolve and many of them are layered, scaffold or emerge from the previous perspective. In an example she noted, “today was is known as cognitive information processing (CIP) is in reality an integration of views developed from a variety of perspectives” (p. 74). (Salas, 2011)

            Kapp (2007) adds to this by stating “We need to take pieces from each school of thought and apply it effectively because…Cognitivism doesn’t 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.” Since these perspectives were posted in 2007, I’m sure new and revised theories have been brewing. It is my hope the theorists responsible and the educators supporting these views have also had the opportunity to read Kapp (2007) and Kerr (2007). (Salas, 2011)

At the center of their comments about cognitivism and its contributive value to learning and education technology applications, is Stephen Downes, whose spirited perspective adds to the exchange, and I’ve included below.

Consider whether this analogical statement makes sense:  “the sculpture was already in the rock” therefore knowledge is “latent in the mind, the pre-existing capacity to learn not only language but even sets of concepts and universal truths.”? (Downes, 2006). This view challenges traditional cognitivism that “uses the metaphor of the mind as computer: information comes in, is being processed, and leads to certain outcomes” (Learning-theories.com, n.d.).

Fast forward to 2010, in his criticism of Downes, Covello (2010) synthesizes and attempts to finely distinguish Downes’ view as perhaps a question of semantics: “Downes argues against the Cognitive “schema object” approach while at once advocating the “neural scheme”. Isn’t a Cognitive schema a pattern of interrelating principles/concepts/etc.? I guess the argument is more of a metaphysical one where Cognitivism functions in the network within a “black box”, whereas the Functional Connectionist would deny the existence of the “boxes within the black box” and only recognize the network.”  Covello (2010) explains Downes's perspective: “Instead, knowledge is expressed as a pattern of interconnected neurons, mapped over a variety of areas of the brain in such a way that imbues it with cross-experiential meaning, such as my definition of “Paris, France” meaning something different to someone else’s definition of “Paris, France”. The nuances in meaning are defined by the manner of connectivity – thus “knowledge is in the network” (Covello, 2010)-- which points to personal learning environments (PLE) – still a form of cognitivism or have we moved on to another theory - connectivism? 


Here are some interesting links:
Cognitive Technologies http://www.cognitivetechnologies.net/
Bill Kerr http://learningevolves.wikispaces.com/learning+theories or http://learningevolves.wikispaces.com/
Bill Kerr articles http://www.users.on.net/~billkerr/a/behaviourist.htm#resolve
Karl. M. Kapp http://www.karlkapp.com/
Personal Learning Environments http://www.slideshare.net/GrahamAttwell/personal-learning-environments-46423
Personal Learning Theory http://www.slideshare.net/Downes/connectivism-a-theory-of-personal-learning
Stephen Downes’ Web http://www.downes.ca/index.html

References

Covello, S. (2010, February 3). A critique of Downes’ Connectivism and defense of the PLE paradigm [Web log post]. Retrieved from http://www.apescience.com/id/blog/a-critque-of-downes-connectivism-and-defense-of-the-ple-paradigm

Downes, S. (2006, October 16). Learning networks and connective knowledge. Retrieved from http://it.coe.uga.edu/itforum/paper92/paper92.html

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

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/

Learning-theories.com (n.d.). Cognitivism. Retrieved from http://www.learning-theories.com/cognitivism.html

Salas, A. (2011). Module 2 discussion about cognitivism [discussion post]. Retrieved from  http://laureate.ecollege.com/ec/crs/default.learn?CourseID=5246376&CPURL=laureate.ecollege.com&Survey=1&47=3171393&ClientNodeID=984645&coursenav=0&bhcp=1