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.
