The first article I read was “Constructivism in Teacher Education: Considerations for Those Who Would Link Practice to Theory” by Abdal-Haqq. My background in educational theory isn’t as strong as I wish it was and so to begin each topic I like to start with an article that presents the history and tenets of each theory. This was such an article. Additionally, it presented some practical applications for constructivism. From the article I learned (or remembered) that constructivism focuses on “learning by doing” and lets individuals create or construct their own understanding and knowledge. This article was helpful in that it also helped define constructivism by what it was not; contrasting it with previous theories we’d studied - particularly behaviorism and the knowledge “banking” approach to teaching.
The second article I read was “Objectivism versus Constructivism: Do We Need a New Philosophical Paradigm?” by David H. Jonassen. This article focuses on instructional systems technology (IST) and how it can be updated to work within constructivist theory. The article states that most IST evolved with a behaviorist foundation and is, thus, ill-suited to function in a constructivist environment. It then offers suggestions of how IST could be modified to depart from its behaviorist origins. The article recommends that IST goals and objectives would be “negotiated” rather than imposed - thus allowing students to help guide their own learning. The article suggests that the tasks from IST should focus less on identifying the single answer and focus on the process of learning more. Finally it suggests that IST should be less concerned with specific learning behaviors and should be less criterion referenced.
The third article I read was “Behaviorism, Constructivism, and Socratic Pedagogy” by Peter Boghossian. The idea of the paper is that various theories of education come and go but Socratic Method is eternal (and presumably either ideal or the best of what we’ve seen). The paper then seeks to determine if Socratic Pedagogy can be placed within behaviorism or constructivism. The short answer is that, no - it cannot. Since we’re focused on constructivism - the article states that the presupposition of the Socratic Method is that there is an empirical truth and that the truth can be known (and determined through discourse). Given that the main tenant of constructivism is that students create their own knowledge and learning 30 different individuals may arrive at 30 (slightly) different answers - thus there is no empirical truth. Thus Socratic Method and constructivism are, to a certain extent, either-or propositions.
Finally, I read “Translating Constructivism into Instructional Design: Potential and Limitations” by Yiasemina Karagiorgi. The article states that “Constructivism is the dominant theory of the last decade” but determines that a lot of instructional design fails to properly implement the underlying principles of constructivism (i.e. active, collaborative and authentic learning). The article tries to provide some ideas, suggestions and “tool kits” to help create constructivist lessons. The reason I selected this article is that it also highlights some of the limitations of constructivism in real world scenarios. Specifically the challenges of constructivist learning in the classroom is the varying levels of knowledge students enter the classroom with and providing lessons with authentic learner control and evaluating student directed lessons.
In high school I made it up through Calculus - so I have a pretty good idea of the range of math taught in schools. However, not being a math teacher I really struggled with imagining the potential applications of the various math tools presented.
As a result I played with several tools/games in an effort to have something useful/positive to say.
I started with the Fractals (Iterative as well as Koch and Sierpinski). While somewhat interesting to look at the novelty wore off in just a few seconds. The iterations of fractals actually seemed to stop relatively quickly and the lack of any options really limited the ability to “play” and see what’s going on.
I then played with Geoboard which was, to me, almost a complete waste. By the time anyone could understand how to run the Geoboard they are already well past the “find the perimeter” stage - which was the stated intent of the tool. The slope calculator was potentially useful/interesting but was a side feature of the whole thing.
Being a government/political science teacher I fond the tools/simulators for probability to be potentially useful.
I played with “Hamlet Happens” - which was a fun illustration of long shot odds. However, while you’re allowed up to a 5 letter word, I picked just a 4 letter word and let it run for 20 minutes and it never actually achieved it. It got old quickly. I meant to let it run in the background while I moved on, but when I brought up the next tool it closed that window.
Much more interesting was the Whammy Awards - which simulates voting systems and the odd results they provide. I’ve been doing something similar in class and may actually use this tool to speed up the process.
Similarly the coin tossing application has some potential applications when talking about political odds.
Finally, I played with “stick or switch” which illustrated a hard to conceive of property of probability better than any teacher/professor I’ve ever had. If only I were still tutoring my sister-in-law for Math 108!
Behaviorists have a point. They believe that environment controls behavior and that a change in environment will result in a change of behavior. To a behaviorist, the individual’s mind, personality, intellectual strengths are irrelevant (Rabinowits, 2005, p. 49) We see applications of this learning theory in our everyday lives; Supermarkets paint their stores certain colors to make us hungry as we shop, music is played as we sit on hold with customer service to calm us, lighting is adjusted in restaurants for a variety of effects. etc… Classrooms are no different; Seating arrangements, wall decorations, lighting, color can all be adapted to increase concentration and enhance learning. Additionally, these environmental changes are relatively simple and inexpensive yet can have a major impact. As teachers we do ourselves a disservice when we ignore this “low hanging fruit”.
But the behaviorist approach leaves much unexamined. If students were simply a product of their environment then once they entered the uniform environment of the school their behavior should begin to converge. Yet even schools that have implemented school uniforms, a dramatic attempt to control the student’s immediate environment, would report that one student’s behavior differs radically from another based on a whole host of other factors - personality high on that list.
So while I believe that behaviorists have a point, and deserved to be taken into consideration, behaviorism is certainly not an all encompassing educational theory and we need to look beyond it for more answers.
References
Rabinowits, M., Shaw, E. J. (2005).Psychology, Instructional Design, and the Use of Technology: Behavioral, Cognitive, and Affordances Perspectives. Educational Technology, May-June 2005, 49-53.
The effects of technology on students and learning can be profound. Yet these new tools are simply tools, and like any other tool can be misused. It is unsurprising that most PCs used in the work environment have preinstalled programs like FreeCell removed, and it should be unsurprising that school computers have popular social networking sites blocked.
According to recent studies college students who use facebook found that their GPAs were in the 3.0-3.5 range as opposed to 3.5-4.0 for their non-facebook-using peers (Abell, 2009, p. 1). This is the result of facebook users spending more time on facebook than on their academic work - sometimes as little as one hour a week (Khan, 2009, p. 1). This distraction is omnipresent at home and for college students, but it need not be brought into public schools to distract high school and junior high students. In fact, some college professors have begun banning laptops because of distractions like facebook (Klugerman, 2010, p. 1). Further, fake facebook profiles (Benjamin, 2010, p. 1) cyber bullying are major problems for schools (Guzik, 2010, p. 1) across the nation.
However, blocking the most widely used social networking sites doesn’t mean blocking off everything. Blocking facebook doesn’t mean that resources with more academic applications (like Flickr) should be blocked off. Further, social networking sites like Ning that can create a social network within the classroom environment should be encouraged.
The “walled garden” exists for the student’s benefit and for the safety and legal protection of the schools and teachers. While I believe that it can go too far simply dismantling the wall seems like an ill-advised idea.
References
Abell, J. C. (2009). Facebook Users Are Poorer Students - And Don’t Know It. wired, Retrieved from http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2009/04/facebook-users/
Benjamin, M. (2010). Students’ Facebook hoax leads to legal fight. FresnoBee, Retrieved from http://www.fresnobee.com/2010/03/05/1848495/students-facebook-hoax-leads-to.html
Guzik, H. (2010). Middle School Dealing With Cyber-bullying. Ashland Daily Tidings, Retrieved from http://www.dailytidings.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100309/NEWS02/3090301/-1/NEWSMAP
Khan, U. (2009). Facebook Stud$ents Underachieve in Exams. Telegraph, Retrieved from http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/5145243/Facebook-students-underachieve-in-exams.html
Klugerman, Y. (2010). College Professors Banning Laptops. CTICareerSearch, Retrieved from http://www.citytowninfo.com/career-and-education-news/articles/college-professors-banning-laptops-10030901
For me the most interesting reading this module was “Objectivism versus Constructivism: Do We Need a New Philosophical Paradigm?” by David H. Jonassen.It continues in a theme for our readings in arguing that theoretical approaches have actual consequences on how we approach things in a classroom.
But more interestingly this particular paper compared and contrasted two different theories of education (Objectivism and Constructivism).In most of the readings we’ve had the author argued for their particular theory without giving a fair appraisal (or even an adequate summary) of opposing theories.In this case we saw the strengths and weaknesses of a couple of the major theories.For a visual learner, like myself, the side-by-side chart (Jonassen 9) really helped me understand the contrasting theories.
Reading through the descriptions of objectivism and constructivism I had a hard time placing myself and ended up vacillating between the two competing theories.Like constructivists I do believe that the classroom instruction should focus on “providing tools and environments for helping learners interpret the multiple perspectives of the world” and that we do - in some ways - construct our own reality (Jonassen 12).However, like objectivists I do believe there is - in most cases - an objective reality (Jonassen 10) and a “big-T” Truth out there; and that in many ways the goal of instruction is to “map [that] external reality onto learners” (Jonassen 12).
Fortunately, upon reaching the conclusion of the paper, I found I wasn’t alone in my failure to “pick a side”.Jonassen writes “learning obviously entails constructivist and objectivistic activities” and “the most realistic model of learning lies somewhere on the continuum between these positions” (13). I couldn’t agree more and was thrilled to see theories described in detail and acknowledging that neither was 100% correct.
A spreadsheet on a computer mimics old accounting paper spreadsheets. They contain rows and columns of data and is primarily used to record and compare numerical or financial data (Rogers, 2010, para. 1). Spreadsheets allow you to easily perform computations of large amounts of data and create graphics of that data.
Databases are more powerful than spreadsheets as they contain and can manipulate much more data in different ways. A database consists of records - each one is like an individual spreadsheet . Databases allow you to search for all records that match certain criteria, update records in bulk, cross-reference records and perform complex calculations(Chapple, 2010, para. 4)
The relative advantage of both spreadsheets and databases is that it allows students to gather and analyze large amounts of data. Thus allowing them to draw conclusions or form ideas about information that would be too overwhelming in its raw form.
An emerging trend I’ve seen administrators pushing for is foregoing traditional grading for “standards based grading” where it doesn’t matter as much if a student was doing the work throughout the year but more whether they had mastered the concepts of the class by the end of the year.
Like, I think, a lot of teachers part of me rebels against the idea. Teachers are, by definition, people for whom school (largely) worked. Not only did we make it through high school and college but we liked school so much we wanted to make being there our career.
However, our students aren’t always like that. But still the idea of putting less emphasis on assignments and homework was foreign to my experience in school.
After this week I think I understand it better.
The theory I picked for my 504 paper on learning theories was one I’d never heard of before - which is precisely why I picked it. It’s called double-loop learning. Basically, in single-loop learning people set their goals or objectives and move towards them. When their actions or decisions fall short, they adjust those actions or decisions and aim for those goals again. For example, when a student aims for an A, but misses questions on a quiz they then study harder, learn the answers to those questions or otherwise address the reason they missed those questions so they don’t do so on the next test.
In double-loop learning not only do people evaluate their actions but also the end goals. For example, when a teacher assigns a worksheet or homework assignment it is not only important that we grade that worksheet but also important that we evaluate whether the goals of the worksheet were met and were, in the end, good goals.
Double-loop learning has helped me understand standards based grading better in that it is focused on the end goal of learning without becoming distracted or caught up in the distraction of daily assignments and homework.
For me the major advantage of educational software is the ability to play simulations and games. As a US Government teacher lessons are very easy during election years to the point where real world events almost teach the class for you (if you’re paying attention and utilize the teachable moments as they materialize).
But major elections, like Presidential elections, only occur every 4 years. In the intervening years the only way to give students anything close to the right perspective on things is through simulations. Every Government teacher runs mock Congresses and a few do a mock Supreme Court. But the games I’ve added to my budget proposal allow students to play with the budgetary process, run a campaign, and manage a country. This is in addition to the wonderful free software I’ve already been using in class like the Redistricting Game (go play it, you know you want to).
Other applications like Google Earth help illustrate and bring to life far off places (I have to teach a mini unit on Greece and Rome as the origins of democracy, Google Earth brings both to life). Other software allows us to run through drills in preparation for quizzes and tests.
Overall, educational software allows me to illustrate concepts that would otherwise be beyond the normal experience of my students. This illustration and experience helps them learn, and retain what they learn, better.
Assignment:
A list of Essential Questions for Technology Integration can be found at http://www.ct4me.net/technology_integr.htm. Choose TWO of these questions to Blog about. You can reference the materials found within this website but also include at least two additional references in your Blog response to your selected questions.
Questions:
How is technology affecting the learning process?
What is technological literacy?
My students would undoubtedly find great amusement watching my grandfather try to use his computer. He still owns his old Windows 98 machine and still connects to the Internet via dial up. When he tries to double click on an icon he violently slaps the mouse, lifts his hand up almost to shoulder level and slaps it back down again as quickly as he can. This is, as you might imagine, rather ineffective. The first dramatic slap moves the mouse and, more often than not, initiates a “drag-and-drop” action. My grandfather’s desktop is littered with icons that have been shifted around in the vain attempt to activate their associated program.
It’s not that my grandfather isn’t smart enough to handle his computer, he’s actually a rather intelligent man. And it’s not that he’s scared or intimidated by technology overall. It’s not even solely a matter of competency as he clearly understands that he wants to double-click on the icons in question. Rather his awkward (and amusing) behavior stems from the fact that he’s not a digital native and lacks any real technological literacy.
While the exact definition of technological literacy is still up for debate, in general definitions offered all involve some variation on the “ability to use” technology, know “how it works” as well as understanding what goals technology can help us achieve.
Incorporation of technology into the classroom can help us make our lessons more engaging, make our jobs as teachers easier, and help students understand more. However, one of the main ways technology is affecting the learning process is that simply via constant exposure to technology we create students with a high level of technological literacy. This literacy serves students well as they study other subjects. Technology, especially access to the Internet, can help change the role of teachers from “a keeper of knowledge to more of a facilitator - helping students teach themselves” (Monser, 2005, p. 3). This produces a high level of student c over the content they learn and allows them to pursue avenues of thought that they are interested in but that still connect back to the curriculum. This increases student’s motivation, understanding and retention of information.
As George Siemens notes
“While hype words of web 2.0, blogs, wikis, and podcasts are easy to ignore, the change agents driving these tools are not. We communicate differently than we did even ten years ago. We use different tools for learning; we experience knowledge in different formats and at a different pace.”
It is the use of those new technological tools that will allow us to keep up with the new pace of education and teach students that not only know details of the subject we’re trying to teach but also are technologically literate and capable of teaching themselves.
We are exposed to an overwhelming amount of information—requiring continually greater levels of specialization in our organizations. It is here—where knowledge growth exceeds our ability to cope—that new theories of knowledge and learning are needed. And it is in this space that a whole development model of learning must be created (i.e. learning beyond vocational skills, leading to the development of persons as active contributors to quality of life in society).
Extra Resources:
Monser, K. (2005). Professional Development Resources and Strategies for Teachers Implementing a One-to-One Laptop Initiative. The Department of Instructional Design and Technology Emporia State University. 1-21.
Siemens, G. (2006, November 12). Connectivism: Learning theory or pastime of the self-amused? Elearnspace blog. http://www.elearnspace.org/Articles/connectivism_self-amused.htm