Admittedly, I found this question difficult to answer, given my style and approach to many things in my life. Most people would say that my reserved ways are more emblematic of a formal style. I try to be careful and safe in my approaches to many situations, so I am more likely to employ a formal style to any instructional environment.
I remember the first time I ever taught at the college-level. I taught, for lack of better term, an “introduction to college life” course. It was an extended orientation course which covered such things as time management, study skills, life management, knowing institutional resources, and others.
My overall goal in the course was to instill in students accountability, not just for themselves, but for their instructors. Whenever a student asked clarifying questions that could easily be answered by reviewing the course contract, AKA the syllabus, my answer was always the same – “Read your syllabus.” I wanted to be the teacher who was strict and orderly, who covered his ass in every aspect and who covered every scenario possible. If students did exactly what the syllabus asked of them, they got the grade they deserved – no grey areas. In sum, I included a lot of needs I had as a student during my undergraduate years and incorporated them into my approach as a teacher.
Now the above was done early on in my career – over 15 years ago. Knowing what I know now, especially in online classrooms (which I have primarily been engaged in during the last several years as a student), the above approach by itself will not work at all. I still firmly believe that a certain level of order must be present in a classroom, regardless of delivery mode. But I also am embracing the need to not be so rigid. So I guess this is where the authentic aspect can come in. I have come to embrace flexibility more and more and am less stuck on order and precision. It is OK to allow some flexibility and creativity, and to consider the wants and needs of the student in creating any learning environment.
Part of this flexibility should include some level of contribution to the classroom experience. If I truly believe in constructionism (which was the topic of my last post), then it is going to be crucial for me to let loose somewhat and allow for individual creativity and participation. I cannot be firm and stick to a script all the time.
To try and use both styles, I may be stricter with task-specific assignments. For other aspects, like dialogue and discussions, I would imagine being a bit less formal (although I would want all students to contribute a certain amount of times and in certain ways – and this can be spelled out in a grade rubric). But, if it does not happen, so be it. And I should be OK with the notion that you get out of it what you put into it.
Monday, February 27, 2017
Tuesday, February 14, 2017
Kolb v Siemens: Dawn of eLearning
Whenever we talk about any teaching/learning approach, applying some sort of principle to your approach is generally expected. We often tend to "stick" to a principle(s), or, for the purposes of this post, a theory(or theories) that seem to work or resonate. In (re) reading Kolb' Experiential Learning and being newly introduced to Siemens' Connectivism, I was reminded of another theory which I've referred to in other contexts involving technology application in education: Constructionism. Given the amount of creation that is going on in this class thus far, I thought it relevant to bring this theory in to this post.
Seymour Papert has used the term “constructionism” to describe the process of knowledge construction resulting from constructing objects. When learners function as designers of objects, they learn more about those objects than they would from studying about them. “Constructionism… shares contructivism’s view of learning as ‘building knowledge structures’ through progressive internalization of actions… It then adds the idea that this happens especially felicitously in a context where the learner is consciously engaged in constructing a public entity, whether it’s a sand castle on the beach or a theory of the universe” (Papert & Harel, 1991, p.1). “Because of its greater focus on learning through making rather than overall cognitive potentials, Papert’s approach helps us understand how ideas get formed and transformed when expressed through different media, when actualized in particular contexts, when worked out by individual minds. The emphasis shifts from universals to individual learners’ conversation with their own favorite representations, artifacts, or objects-to-think with” (Ackerman, 2001, p. 4).
Contextualizing instruction is important for learning, particularly in specialized fields of education. Teachers need to be able to apply their own skills and learning directly to the contexts in which they work. Teaching someone how to create a Smart Notebook lesson without considering the need to adapt such a lesson to specialized situations, like, for example, the special education classroom, can lead to inadequate applications of the technology. Additionally, technology in education often involves creating something tangible (digital or physical) for the use of others. Technology integration training often includes instruction on how to use very software or hardware, with the goal of creating (or constructing) a final product or project, whether it be a class wiki, or website, or blog.
Kolb’s (1984) experiential learning theory presents a four stage cycle of learning that considers concrete experience (doing - similar to Papert), reflective observation, abstract conceptualization (learning from experience), and active experimental (trying what was learned - also similar to Papert). According to Kolb, learning involves the acquisition of abstract concepts that can be applied in different situations. Over the course of time, we can use these situations to challenge our assumptions, thereby allowing learning to occur at the “interplay between expectation and experience” (p. 28). Every time a person experiences any sort of event, there is potential for learning to occur. One can draw connections between belief systems, reflect on the new information acquired, and apply learning in attitudes moving forward.
Siemens’ (2005) connectivism acknowledges that learning occurs outside of the individual and is influenced mainly by the learner’s connection with a wider network. So while connectivism still begins with the individual, “personal knowledge is comprised of a network, which feeds into organizations and institutions, which in turn feed back into the network, and then continue to provide learning to individual” (p. 6). Connectivsm’s knowledge cycle of knowledge involves not only individuals but their network and the organizations in which they are positioned. Connectivism lends itself to how learning occurs within the Internet and online classrooms because “We can no longer personally experience and acquire learning that we need to act. We derive our competence from forming connections” (p.4). Additionally, connectivism explores the question of not only the process of learning that occurs but the value of what is being learned. Siemens explains that “In a networked world, the very manner of information that we acquire is worth exploring” (p. 3). I believe examining the manner of how we acquire information is an important part of the learning process since there is an increase in the multiple ways that people can now access information.
I believe experiential learning theory and connectivism are not mutually exclusive since they both view learning as a process occurring within particlulr contexts. However, connectivism accounts for learning that moves beyond the individual learner by linking the individual to a network and organizations that are essentially their own unique learning objects.
References
Ackerman, E. (2001). Piaget's constructivism, Papert's constructionism: What's the difference? Future of Learning. Available: http://learning.media.mit.edu/content/publications/EA.Piaget%20_%20Papert.pdf
Kolb, D.A. (1984): Experiential learning: experience as the source of learning and development
Papert, S. & I. Harel (1991), Situating constructionism. Chapter 1 of Constructionism. Available: http://www.papert.org/articles/SituatingConstructionism.html.
Siemens, G. (2005) Connectivism: A Learning Theory for the Digital Age
Seymour Papert has used the term “constructionism” to describe the process of knowledge construction resulting from constructing objects. When learners function as designers of objects, they learn more about those objects than they would from studying about them. “Constructionism… shares contructivism’s view of learning as ‘building knowledge structures’ through progressive internalization of actions… It then adds the idea that this happens especially felicitously in a context where the learner is consciously engaged in constructing a public entity, whether it’s a sand castle on the beach or a theory of the universe” (Papert & Harel, 1991, p.1). “Because of its greater focus on learning through making rather than overall cognitive potentials, Papert’s approach helps us understand how ideas get formed and transformed when expressed through different media, when actualized in particular contexts, when worked out by individual minds. The emphasis shifts from universals to individual learners’ conversation with their own favorite representations, artifacts, or objects-to-think with” (Ackerman, 2001, p. 4).
Contextualizing instruction is important for learning, particularly in specialized fields of education. Teachers need to be able to apply their own skills and learning directly to the contexts in which they work. Teaching someone how to create a Smart Notebook lesson without considering the need to adapt such a lesson to specialized situations, like, for example, the special education classroom, can lead to inadequate applications of the technology. Additionally, technology in education often involves creating something tangible (digital or physical) for the use of others. Technology integration training often includes instruction on how to use very software or hardware, with the goal of creating (or constructing) a final product or project, whether it be a class wiki, or website, or blog.
Kolb’s (1984) experiential learning theory presents a four stage cycle of learning that considers concrete experience (doing - similar to Papert), reflective observation, abstract conceptualization (learning from experience), and active experimental (trying what was learned - also similar to Papert). According to Kolb, learning involves the acquisition of abstract concepts that can be applied in different situations. Over the course of time, we can use these situations to challenge our assumptions, thereby allowing learning to occur at the “interplay between expectation and experience” (p. 28). Every time a person experiences any sort of event, there is potential for learning to occur. One can draw connections between belief systems, reflect on the new information acquired, and apply learning in attitudes moving forward.
Siemens’ (2005) connectivism acknowledges that learning occurs outside of the individual and is influenced mainly by the learner’s connection with a wider network. So while connectivism still begins with the individual, “personal knowledge is comprised of a network, which feeds into organizations and institutions, which in turn feed back into the network, and then continue to provide learning to individual” (p. 6). Connectivsm’s knowledge cycle of knowledge involves not only individuals but their network and the organizations in which they are positioned. Connectivism lends itself to how learning occurs within the Internet and online classrooms because “We can no longer personally experience and acquire learning that we need to act. We derive our competence from forming connections” (p.4). Additionally, connectivism explores the question of not only the process of learning that occurs but the value of what is being learned. Siemens explains that “In a networked world, the very manner of information that we acquire is worth exploring” (p. 3). I believe examining the manner of how we acquire information is an important part of the learning process since there is an increase in the multiple ways that people can now access information.
I believe experiential learning theory and connectivism are not mutually exclusive since they both view learning as a process occurring within particlulr contexts. However, connectivism accounts for learning that moves beyond the individual learner by linking the individual to a network and organizations that are essentially their own unique learning objects.
References
Ackerman, E. (2001). Piaget's constructivism, Papert's constructionism: What's the difference? Future of Learning. Available: http://learning.media.mit.edu/content/publications/EA.Piaget%20_%20Papert.pdf
Kolb, D.A. (1984): Experiential learning: experience as the source of learning and development
Papert, S. & I. Harel (1991), Situating constructionism. Chapter 1 of Constructionism. Available: http://www.papert.org/articles/SituatingConstructionism.html.
Siemens, G. (2005) Connectivism: A Learning Theory for the Digital Age
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)