EDUC-7105-1/EDUC-8845-1 Module 6 Blog Post

Note for Dr. Moller: I have posted on the following two blogs for this module: Sarah Dillahunt’s blog http://sarahdwaldenu.blogspot.com/ and Toni Duke’s blog http://momtech-eeducatorblogger.blogspot.com/. 

Learning in a Digital World

The elements that I consider to be critical and non-negotiable in teaching and learning are based on multiple learning theories, although my focus is centered mostly on constructivism. In other words, learning is a complex matter in which it seems impossible to conceive of a single theory broad enough to encompass all important aspects of learning and yet still specific enough to be useful for instruction (Driscoll, 2005, p. 411). We have little choice but to work together, adding to the body of knowledge ways in which we can help to improve instruction. Hopefully, as educators in America, we can come up with new learning and/or instructional theories that will help to keep Americans creative in this fast-paced competitive digital age. As teachers, we should encourage our students to grow different intelligences that would help him or her to achieve the required learning goal. Behaviorism served the purpose of accessing students’ mastery of learning objectives. Cognitivism served the purpose of promoting students’ motivation. Constructivism served the purpose of students’ learning in a social environment, as they work together to make sense of their experiences (Driscoll, 2005, page 387).  On the otherhand, in this digital age, connectivism served the purpose of an instructional theory in that it identified methods that will best provide the conditions under which learning goals will most likely be attained (Reigeluth, 1983). Connectivism as an instructional theory, supports constructivism as in which Siemens urged educators and designers to move with the times in assisting learners in making use of information in today’s digital world (Laureate Education, Inc., 2011). In essence, what I believe to be critical and non-negotiable in teaching and learning, is an ongoing patch work of present learning theories and instructional theories that are related to the required learning outcomes.

Like many doctoral students today, I have experienced learning in both online and face-to-face learning environments. Technology has not changed the way we learn as individuals, although it does have an impact on our learning environment.  In short, what it means to know has not changed; however, the means might have changed in this digital era. Result or outcome is part of Driscoll’s list of three basic components that are needed for building a learning theory:  results, means and inputs (Driscoll, 2005, p. 9). How students learn best in this technological era depends on the learning outcome and whether the means and input work well with that required learning outcome. Therefore, learners’ results (or learning outcomes) will be affected if the means and inputs are lacking.  From what I have seen, often learners who are well connected and resourceful online tend to stand a better chance of performing well in school these days.  Judging from my experience, face-to-face learning versus online learning is by far richer in respect to richness of media. In 2002, Qureshi, Morton, and Antosz expressed that students in distance learning were less motivated than their on-campus counterparts.  In contrast, during 2007, Huett, Moller, Harvey and Engstrom revealed that groups have a motivational impact on learners in an online environment, although the impact was not transferable to changes in students’ attitudes. Also, as sited in Huett et al. (2007),  Kruger (2000) explained that students in distant learning are capable of developing meaningful relationships with faculty and fellow students when they engage in learning communities “unbound by the barriers of time and place” (p. 59). Going by my experience, face-to-face is a richer form of learning than online learning, of which I have seen some disturbing differences between the two forms of learning.  For instance, I recall feeling isolated during my MBA online program to the point where I felt like dropping out entirely.  Despite the numerous means of communal support that were introduced, I felt lonely.  Fortunately, I came across an ex-class mate from one of my onsite undergrad classes who was enrolled in the same MBA program but onsite.  We would meet occasionally with the aim of making sense of everything. One thing remained with me was that the onsite equivalent MBA program was not as challenging as the online version. For example, once I had to submit a five sheet excel work book for one of my courses, while my friend onsite only had to submit a single sheet! It seems that teachers online tend to stick with the curriculum, while those onsite might tinker with it, making it less challenging for learners. My impression of online learning versus face-to-face learning  is that while online learning is convenient in that learners can work at their own pace asynchronously, learning online is strict and demanding for both the teacher and the learner.

References

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

Huett, J.B., Moller, L.A, Harvey, D., & Engstrom, M.E. (2007). Examining the use of learning communities to increase motivation. Information age publishing

Qureshi, E., Morton, L. L., & Antosz, E. (2002). An interesting profile: University students who take distance education courses show weaker motivation than on-campus students. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 5(4).

Reigeluth, C. M. (1983). Instructional design: What is it and why is it? In C.M. Reighluth (Ed.), Instructional-design theories and models. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Siemens, G. (2006), Connectivism Learning Theory [Video file]. Laureate Education, Inc. (Executive Producer) Baltimore: Author.

Note for Dr. Moller on Module 5 Blog Assignment

The following blog post is for Module 5. I have posted on the following two blogs for this module: Joy Winterhalder http://jwinty.edublogs.org and Ron Smalley http://ron-s.blogspot.com/.

EDUC-7105-1/EDUC-8845-1 Module 5 Blog Post

New Technologies

Going by what I have seen over the years of being a tutor and teacher, people in general have positive attitudes toward experimenting with new technologies in the workplace. However, there are always a few individuals who might put up resistance to change. Some might out rightly oppose these new ideas, while others might engage in a more subtle resistance to the change. I believe that teachers who engage in passive resistance can have a major negative impact on students’ learning.  For one, there will be inconsistencies in terms of what students expect to use as tools as they move through their programs.  I find resistance to new technologies in the workplace to be disheartening, since there is so much new learning resources out there that educators could tinker with that might help to motivate learners.

An Educator may encourage students to learn by employing a motivational design. According to John M. Keller, motivational design refers to the process of arranging resources and actions to bring about changes in motivation (Keller, 2006). Keller explained that a motivational design can be useful in terms of increasing students’ motivation to learn, workers’ motivation, the design can be used to develop of specific motivational characteristics in individuals, and to improve an individual’s skill in self-motivation (Keller, 2006). Marcy P. Driscoll explained Keller’s model for understanding motivation in her text.  Driscoll explained that Keller assumed that learners’ motives (or values) along with their expectancies, will influence the degree of attention and effort they will supply to a learning task (Driscoll, 2005, p. 332). The idea is that multiple elements contribute to a learner’s performance, elements that go beyond a person’s current capabilities and skills. One troubling item is failure, where this may negatively influence the learner’s motivation in future learning experiences.

I currently teach at a college in my neighborhood for almost one year now and interestingly, last week I was asked to speak at the school’s faculty development meeting.  Having a technical background along with a good rapport with students, I was asked to train faculty members on collaborative tools that students can use for their course projects.  Most professors seemed interested and excited as I began with a brief overview of the various free tools that are available for students to use.  However, some faculty members appeared uneasy once I mentioned the possible roles that they as educators can play pertaining to the collaboration process for these course projects.  In other words, once professors realized that their input would require tinkering with the actual technologies; they became more or less daunted by the rest of what I had to say.  For example, instead of asking each student to complete a “team evaluation” form, professors could simply asked students to share for instance their Google Document account with him or her.  In this way, professors would readily have access to the revision history of course projects and will be able to see the actual input of all team members.  One problem that surfaced was that most professors were reluctant to setting up additional accounts outside of what they are familiar with of which most of these programs will require new user accounts. 

On the contrary, last week my students and I were online discussing creative ways of how to improve and monitor their own learning. I wish other professors at the school could have witnessed how much information some of these young students are tapping into on their own! My students and I spoke of technologies that might aid their personal learning styles for instance, text-to-speech software that can help students whose learning styles are more auditory.  Some students spoke about various ways in which they can use their iPads to increase their learning since their learning style might be more visual.  The whole point that I am making is how these young learners are more open to experimenting with new technologies in comparison to my fellow professors at the school which can become a problem since students might lose interest and become bored with traditional teaching methods.  My students constantly let me know how much they enjoy being in my class, and I believe it has to do with my openness to new technologies and my willingness to uncover new ways of achieving learning goals with them.

I was told that my overall presentation at the faculty developmental meeting was a success; however, it was disturbing to sense the subtle resistance that some professors displayed towards collaborative tools. As mentioned above, I am used to seeing students displaying sheer excitement in regards to new technologies, therefore, I feel the need to press towards winning the minds of those professors who displayed resistance.  With that said, the implementation of Keller’s ARCS motivational design process might increase the level of success the next time that I am asked to continue with the series of presentations on collaborative tools at my place of work.  Keller expressed that this motivational design is a systematic problem solving approach that requires knowledge of human motivation and progresses from learner analysis to solution design (Keller, 1987, pp. 1-8). This design process would include: 1) knowing and identifying the elements of human motivation; 2) analyzing audience characteristics to determine motivational requirements; 3) identifying characteristics of instructional materials and processes that stimulate motivation; 4) Selecting appropriate motivational tactics; and 5) applying and evaluating appropriate tactics (Keller, 2006).  Even though Keller’s ARCS model seems feasible, I am still finding the implementation to be challenging in regards to my audience of fellow professors. For me the job of teaching teachers is far more complex than teaching ordinary learners in schools! Maybe someone can shed some light on this matter! How do we motivate professors to learn and adapt to new technologies in the workplace?

References

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

Keller, J. M. (1987). The systematic process of motivational design. Performance & Instruction, 26(9), 1-8.

Keller, J. M. (2006).  Retrieved on November 7, 2011. Retrieved from http://www.arcsmodel.com/Mot%20dsgn%20Mot%20dsgn.htm

Note for Dr. Moller on Module 4 Blog Assignment

Please note: The following blog posts are for Module 4.  I have posted on the following two blogs for this module: Tabitha Wright’s blog http://twrighteduc.blogspot.com and Rachel Bell’s blog http://rachelbell33.blogspot.com/. I also responded to one of my class mates on this blog-site.

EDUC-7105-1/EDUC-8845-1 Module 4 Blog Post

My MindMap of Network Connections (Click to Enlarge)

Connectivism

            Behaviorists and cognitivists theories emerge from objectivist tradition, believing that knowledge is “out there” to be transferred into the learner (Driscoll, 2005, page 387). In contrast to objectivists’ viewpoints, constructivist theorists assume that knowledge is constructed by learners as they attempt to make sense of their experiences (p. 387).  Now, connectivists claimed to provide new opportunities for learning that are not met by behaviorist, cognitivists, and constructivists learning theories.  Siemens declared that the demands of the digital age cannot be met by employing the three traditional learning theories and demonstrates how connections and networks are more relevant in a digital age. In a video segment shown by Laureate Education Inc., Siemens stated that in this complex world in which people are swamped with information and digital resources, the role of educators have changed (Laureate Education, Inc., 2011a).  Yes, my connections facilitate my learning in the sense that these connections do affect how much and what type of information I am able to gather (though I would not say it changes how I learn).  How my connections facilitate learning is as follows.

How Has My Network Changed The Way I Learn?

As shown in my mindmap above, without thinking, over the years I had formed diverse networks in my pursuit of information. However, information is useless to me if I cannot apply such findings to real life issues. In short, I am always seeking information that I can use to help me to build on top of what I already know. So in essence, I am actually seeking knowledge.  These networks are separated into two main categories, 1) resources found through digitized technologies; and 2) digital resources that are connected to people.  Importantly, these connections that I have formed do not change how I learn, though they might affect the type of information I gather.  As a learner, I should make sure that I am not only involving persons who are always in agreement with what I have to say.  As an educator, from the connectivists perspective, my primary role is to validate and assist learners in forming diverse networks, ensuring that such networks are diverse and include a broad range of sources of information (Laureate Education, Inc., 2011b).  In other words, as educators, we have to encourage students to not only include readers who are always in agreement with their ideas.  Educators should encourage learners to include a broad range of sources of information, information that are also contradictory to their concepts.

Which Digital Tools Best Facilitate My Learning? 

According to Siemens in the video segment, connectivists teaching and learning must utilize the ability for learners to form effective networks. Siemens described practical technologies as any platform that has the ability for people to express ideas and have the ability for others to come back and comment on these ideas. In short, educators who seek to employ connectivists approach would need open spaces for users to communicate (Laureate Education, Inc., 2011c).  This seemed to have echoed constructivism where learners are not simply empty vessels waiting to be filled, but instead are active organisms seeking meaning and trying to make sense of their experiences (Perkins, 1991).  As shown in my mindmap, I do have multiple open spaces for communicating with family, friends within my learning community and with persons outside my field of study.  I find that the following tools work best to facilitate my learning. For example, this blog, my emails (including, instant messaging, video chats, document sharing), my twitter account, my Skype account, my wiki account, my Facebook and MySpace accounts.

How Do I Learn New Knowledge When I Have Questions?

Instructional designers have had to adapt to the changes as they occur in this digital age wherein the internet has caused a power shift in classrooms (Siemens, 2008, p. 19).  When I have questions, without much thought I have always make full use of resources that resides in a distributed manner across networks, as described by Siemens in 2008 when he stated, “knowledge does not only reside in the mind of an individual, knowledge resides in a distributed manner across a network . . . learning is the act of recognizing patterns shaped by complex networks.”  According to Siemens, these networks are internal, as neural networks, and external, as networks in which we adapt to the world around us (Siemens 2006, p. 10).  In other words, whenever I am learning new information and have questions, the first thing that I would do is go to a search engines such as Google to scan the internet for clues.  Second, I would go to a database system (for instance ProQuest) to find reliable sources of information based on what I had uncovered from search engines.  If I still need clarity, I would search for webinars or presentations that relate to that topic.  In my final attempt for lucidity, I would dig through my contact lists on my phone and emails to connect with professors or individuals who specialize in that area. However, like Dr. Moller, I also have a slight problem with Siemen's idea that knowledge does not only reside in the mind of an individual, believing that knowledge resides in a distributed manner across a network! If that is the case, knowlege would be an item auctioned off to the rich and famous like most precious commodities!

Technological developments over the years have significantly altered how learners access information and knowledge, and how learners dialogue with the instructor and each other (Siemens, 2008, p. 3).  I agree with Siemens when he stated that prior to this technological era, access and interaction was mainly under the control of teachers (p. 3).  So yes, there is now a shift in power within classrooms.  In fact, most of the students at the college where I teach do make use of the same available networked resources I turn to whenever I am seeking out new information and have questions. Knowing this, I have to make sure to keep up with the changes in this new age, especially since often information might become invalid in a short period of time.

References

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

Kop, R., & Hill, A. (2008). Connectivism: Learning theory of the future or vestige of the past? International Review of Research in Open & Distance Learning, 9(3), 1-13. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

Perkins, D. (1991). Technology meets constructivism: Do they make a marriage? Educational Technology 31, 5 (May), 18-23.

Siemens, G. (2006). Knowing Knowledge. Copyright 2006 by George Siemens. Used by permission.

Siemens, G. (2008). Learning and knowing in networks: Changing roles for educators and designers. Paper 105: University of Georgia IT Forum. http://it.coe.uga.edu/itforum/Paper105/Siemens.pdf

Verhagen, P. (2006). Connectivism: A new learning theory? Surf e-learning themasite,

http://elearning.surf.nl/e-learning/english/3793

River IQ Test/Math Logic Challenges

River IQ Test - Laughter HELL!  The first image shown will be in Chinese. To begin, press the blue circle at the bottom right.

Here is a another similar link from hoodamath.com called "Goat Crossing." http://hoodamath.com/games/goatcrossing.php

Here is yet another challenge: http://www.mathcats.com/explore/river/crossing.html

Have you given up? Here is the River IQ test solution:

Have you given up? Here is the Goat Crossing Solution:

Note for Dr. Moller on Module 3 Blog Assignment

The following blog post is for Module 3.  I have posted on the following two blogs for this module: Andres Anzaldua’ blog http://learningtheoryaanzaldua.blogspot.com/  and Jennifer Robinson’ blog http://www.jenniferbethrobinson.blogspot.com/.  . 

EDUC-7105-1/EDUC-8845-1 Module 3 Blog Post

Collaboration

            Behaviorists and cognitivists theories emerge from objectivist tradition.  Both set of theorists appear to assume that knowledge is “out there” to be transferred into the learner (Driscoll, 2005, page 387). In contrast to objectivists’ viewpoints, constructivist theorists assume that knowledge is constructed by learners as they attempt to make sense of their experiences (p. 387).  Based on this principle, learners are not simply empty vessels waiting to be filled, but instead are active organisms seeking meaning and trying to make sense of their experiences (Perkins, 1991). Regarding collaboration from a constructivist’s standpoint, we saw where both Bruner and Vygotsky emphasized the need for cooperation in learning in Driscoll’s text (chapter 7). These constructivists, believed that children must work out their social differences and develop cooperative behaviors that enable them to reach their goals (Driscoll, 2005, p. 276).  

Howard Rheingold on collaboration

Do humans have a basic instinct to “interact and work as a group”?  Bernhard in 1988 stated that one impact of a rapidly changing environment in schools has been the neglect of children’s biologically based needs for belonging to and working within a group (as cited in Driscoll, 2005, p. 276).  I agree with this notion.  Humans in this era are continuously connecting with each other on social networking sites, forming all sorts of groups (some productive and some quite the opposite).  Nonetheless, this goes to show that humans do have a basic instinct to interact and work in groups.  Quite often at the college where I currently teach, students are constantly reprimanded for logging onto social networking sites during class time.  I believe that it would be prudent for educators to go with learners’ natural tendencies than to resist them.  As mentioned previously, both Bruner and Vygotsky emphasized the need for cooperation in learning, but this appears to be geared towards children working within the same age groups. However, Bernhard argued for multi-age groups, as well, believing that mixed-age groupings occurred naturally in foraging societies and occur naturally in today’s world.  Bernard believed that younger children can learn much from observing and imitating their older peers, and older children gain valuable information about parenting when they interact with younger children (Bernhard, 1988).

How can technology facilitate collaboration among learners based on constructivist principles? First, the goals of constructivist instruction are problem solving, reasoning, critical thinking, active and reflective use of knowledge (Driscoll, 2005, p. 393).  I believe that technologies that effectively facilitate collaboration among learners based on constructivist principles are those that learners are comfortable with.  This is where the old cliché comes in; do not fix something that has not been broken!  In other words, educators should make use of existing technologies, for example, social networking sites, blogs and multi-player online gaming.  Most learners have already mastered operating these tools and this would help in encouraging working in teams and help in setting the stage for positive results.

A Research Study That Supports Collaboration as an Effective Learning Tool

Earlier this year, Hong, Yu, and Chen established their powertech contest in Taiwan in an effort to promote inventiveness and technology to elementary students. The powertech contest was designed as a collaborative learning atmosphere for a project design which is comprised of technical processes that included first, the construction of an artifact followed by improvement of its functions (Hong et al., 2011).  In short, the aim was for students to learn scientific and technical knowledge through this collaborative design project.  The purpose of the study was to explore how collaborative learning could make working on a technological project easier and whether and how pupils working collaboratively were able to share their design ideas. The research was conducted by first, analyzing the design portfolio that was put together by a team of four elementary students. These students worked collaboratively to create a robot rat for the powertech contest.  In turn, the researchers assessed the actual collaboration process among the team members.  Results of the study indicated that collaborative learning in the contest had made the sharing of knowledge and resources among the team members easier than if students had worked alone.  Results also showed that reflections essential for problem-solving among the team members were often raised during the design process.

My personal view on this collaborative learning experience was that it seems as though team members had truly collaborated and not just cooperated as they designed their robot rat.  I say this based on one of the findings mentioned above where reflections essential for problem-solving among the team members were often raised during the design process.  Dr. Moller brought up in our class threads that there is a difference between cooperation and collaboration. Cooperative teams usually have a firm mode of operation with specific goals and most of all, all members’ roles are specified. Unlike collaborative teams, whose roles are flexible and may change throughout the project (Dillenbourg, P., Baker, M., Blaye, A.,and Claire O'Malley ,1995).  The idea of collaboration should be taken seriously, since in this atmosphere everyone has a voice in which ideas are not quickly dismissed, but are considered and tested for validity.

References

Bernhard, J.G. (1988). Primates in the classroom: An evolutionary perspective on children’s education. Amherst: The University of Massachusetts Press.

Dillenbourg, P., Baker, M., Blaye, A., & Claire O'Malley (1995) The Evolution of Research on Collaborative Learning. In P. Reimann & H. Spada (Eds). Learning in humans and machines. Towards an interdisciplinary learning science, 189- 211. London: Pergamon. Retrieved from http://performancepyramid.muohio.edu/pyramid/shared-best-practices/Collaberation-Strategies/mainColumnParagraphs/0/document/Collaboration%20Strategies.pdf

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

Hong, J., Yu, K., & Chen, M.(2011). Collaborative learning in technological project design. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 21(3), 335-347.  Retrieved October 12, 2011, from ProQuest Central. (Document ID: 2427014381).

Perkins, D. (1991) Technology meets constructivism: Do they make a marriage? Educational Technology 31, 5 (May), 18-23.

Rheingold, H. (2008). Howard Rheingold on collaboration [Video file]. Retrieved from
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/howard_rheingold_on_collaboration.html

Howard Rheingold’s Video

Reference

Rheingold, H. (2008, February). Howard Rheingold on collaboration [Video file]. Retrieved from
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/howard_rheingold_on_collaboration.html

Note for Dr. Moller on Module 2 Blog Assignment

The following blog post is for Module 2.  I posted on the following two blogs for this module: Vaughn Bradley’ blog http://vaughnswalden.blogspot.com/  and Sarah Dillahunt’s blog http://sarahdwaldenu.blogspot.com .  I also responded to additional class mates on this blog: http://ena-spoonfulofsugar.blogspot.com/.

EDUC-7105-1/EDUC-8845-1 Module 2 Blog Post

Cognitivism as a Learning Theory

            Learning theories in general have certain effective qualities separately, yet, they cannot stand on their own. For example, the type of learning explained by behaviorists in this digital age is linked to the basic behaviorist view that emphasis should be placed on observable measurable outcomes in students (Ertmer & Newby, 1993, p. 56).  Mary P. Driscoll demonstrated that through cognitivism, as an instructor, I may organize information, direct attention, enhance encoding and retrieval, provide practice opportunities and help learners to monitor their own learning (Driscoll, 2005, p. 110).  Karl Kapp wrote on his blog site about conversations he had with Stephen Downes regarding various schools of educational thoughts.  Kapp then mentioned how Bill Kerr added an insightful summary on that dialog. I do agree with Kapp that the most resonating point the Kerr raised was, “It seems to me that each _ism is offering something useful without any of them being complete or stand alone in their own right” (Kerr, 2007).

            For one, what Kerr stated on his blog regarding curriculum reform is indeed true. He stated that learning theory is indispensible to curriculum reform effort. I personally am skeptic when it comes to theories on a whole, but as we know the education system in the United States is in need of change and we are left with little choice but to work with the theories that we have, since they will be our foundation to build processes that will improve learning.  Who knows, maybe by the end of this course, I will lean more towards a single learning theory!  For now, my personal view is similar to that of Kerr.  I believe that each theory has important elements that may very well facilitate learning. I see a behaviorism, cognitivism, constructivism and connectivism as analogous to a quartet, singing together while having specific roles to play. 

            So yes, like Kerr, I believe that although many may criticize behaviorists for not taking into consideration what goes on in the mind, still there remains the idea that actions which are followed by rewards are often repeated.  Sure, behaviorists presented the “Black Box Metaphor” mainly because they did not know how to study the mental processes that went on inside the mind (Driscoll, 2005, p. 34).  I am not saying that behaviorism is perfect and can stand on its own, but that certain aspects of the theory makes sense.  Both Downes and Kerr made a valid point (to a certain extent) about cognitivism.  First, Downes praised cognitivists for declaring that learning occurs internally and through social interactions with others.  However, afterwards, Downes mentioned that cognitivists misrepresented the mind by depicting it as similar to a computer.  Kerr responded in agreement that the mind is completely different from computers which included connectionist machines. However, how would one account for what I am about to say next? I personally (in desperation) programmed my mind to learn a full repertoire of songs through sensory input in one night for a musical tour the following day. I was able to performed one full album of unfamiliar songs flawlessly with the band! All I had done was play the songs repeatedly while I slept.  How would one explain that phenomenon? For this reason, I believe that the mind is programmable and similar to a computer in many respects.

References

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

Ertmer, P. and Newby, T. (1993). Behaviorism, cognitivism, constructivism: Comparing critical features from an instructional design perspective. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 6 (4), 50-72.

Kapp, K. (2007). 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). _isms as filter, not blinker [Web log post]. Retrieved from http://billkerr2.blogspot.com/2007/01/isms-as-filter-not-blinker.html

MODULE 1

The following blog post is for Module 1.  I posted to the following two blogs for this module: Toni Duke’ blog http://MomTech-eEducatorBlogger.blogspot.com and Linda Hutchison’s blog http://hutchisonedt550.blogspot.com

EDUC-7105-1/EDUC-8845-1 Module 1 Blog Post

My name is Ena Smith-Goddard.  I created this blog just before the course started mainly because I wanted to tinker with the blogging environment.

In response to topic 1: What are your beliefs about how people learn best? What is the purpose of learning theory in educational technology?

How an individual learn best rest upon first, the required learning outcome that is needed and second, whether the learning strategy relates well with that required learning outcome.  As seen in this week’s required reading, result/outcome is part of Driscoll’s list of three basic components that are needed for building a learning theory:  results, means and inputs (Driscoll, 2005, p. 9). These three basic components required for building a learning theory are related to Ertmer & Newby’s five definitive questions: 1) how does learning occur? 2) what factors influence learning ? 3) what is the role of memory? 4) how does transfer occur? And 5) what types of learning are best explained by this theory?

The types of learning that behaviorists are employing in this digital age are linked to the basic behaviorist view that emphasis should be placed on observable measurable outcomes in students (Ertmer & Newby, 1993, p. 56). However, based on what I have read so far, instructional designers are now writing objectives that combine behaviorists’ views with cognitive processes (Classweb, 2006). In other words, instructional designers have had to adapt to the changes as they occur in this digital age wherein the internet has caused a power shift in classrooms (Siemens, 2008, p. 19).

Dr. Moller made a statement that makes perfect sense to me.  He mentioned that the reason earlier theorists were not concerned with the internal workings, was that they had no idea of how to study the mental processes that went on inside the mind. Hence, behaviorists presented the “Black Box Metaphor” (Driscoll, 2005, p. 34).

In closing, I would say then that the purpose of learning theory in educational technology is to ensure that educators form constructs that not only identify students’ need or academic goals, but to provide a philosophy that acts as a guide when employing instructional strategies. This will increase the chance of positive learning results for students.  I find the YouTube video on this site called “Changing Educational Paradigms” to be very interesting. It relates to this topic, what are your thoughts on the author’s views in the video?

References

Classweb. (2006). Instructional Design Knowledge Base, Retrieved on September 9, 2011. Retrieved from http://classweb.gmu.edu/ndabbagh/Resources/IDKB/models_theories.htm#implications

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

Ertmer, P. and Newby, T. (1993). Behaviorism, cognitivism, constructivism: Comparing critical features from an instructional design perspective. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 6 (4), 50-72.

Changing Education Paradigms. Your Thoughts?

Topic 1: Should immigrants living in America suppress their accents?

Below is an interesting video that my nephew, Chevaun, recently placed on YouTube.  He spoke about immigrants needing to master the American accent in order to hold their jobs.  Do you think that immigrants should have to go out of their way to sound “American” as a means of holding their jobs? What about the preservation of one’s culture?  Do you think that immigrants should have to totally lose their accents once they decide to reside in America?

Reference

Youtube.com/chevythompson. (2011).  Our Accents.  Retrieved on August 3, 2011. Retrieved from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qIL47Obirk8

This Blog Site Is Not For the Faint of Heart!

Welcome to my world! This is where I say whatever comes to mind.  This blog site is not for the faint of heart, though at times I might “sugarcoat” my thoughts, so as not to cause offense!