http://sbreeden71.blogspot.com/
http://lainepagan.blogspot.com/
Monday, May 10, 2010
8845 MOD 5 Blog
Assumptions
The assumptions that educators have a positive attitude toward experimenting with new technologies in the workplace and that there exist educators who have low self-efficacy in experimenting with new technologies are safe in my school district. The phenomenon where a teacher has an interactive whiteboard in his/her classroom but underutilizes it is an all too common happenstance therein. The following is a description of a case where I intervened.
The mathematics teacher was deeply ensconced in the traditional ethic of ‘drill for skill.’ His only use of the whiteboard was to link to TeacherTube. The selections never seemed to mesh with the ‘drill for skill’ content, audio and video was always poor, he did not know how to maximize the image, and the class would inevitably and quickly lose interest. I had no choice but to talk to the teacher.
In retrospect, without familiarity with Keller’s ARCS model at the time, my initiatives reflected all its elements. My first move was to engage the teacher in his room during his free prep period (I had his Attention). As per our assumptions, he was a willing experimenter with low self-efficacy in the use of whiteboard technology.
During the first session we talked about the importance of exploiting the potential of the technology for purposes of effective teaching and learning (I made the technology Relevant). Subsequent sessions had the teacher practice with hands-on functioning. Technology-based lessons were modeled (we built Confidence). Finally, he taught a technology-based lesson to his classes (Satisfaction was realized).
While many things can be assumed regarding technology in education, many others cannot. One such thing that cannot be assumed is that technology in the classroom is an automatic cause for learning. To those that would make the assumption, I direct them to the first three letters in the word.
Driscoll, M. P. (2005). Psychology of learning for instruction (3rd ed.). Boston: Pearson Education, Inc.
The assumptions that educators have a positive attitude toward experimenting with new technologies in the workplace and that there exist educators who have low self-efficacy in experimenting with new technologies are safe in my school district. The phenomenon where a teacher has an interactive whiteboard in his/her classroom but underutilizes it is an all too common happenstance therein. The following is a description of a case where I intervened.
The mathematics teacher was deeply ensconced in the traditional ethic of ‘drill for skill.’ His only use of the whiteboard was to link to TeacherTube. The selections never seemed to mesh with the ‘drill for skill’ content, audio and video was always poor, he did not know how to maximize the image, and the class would inevitably and quickly lose interest. I had no choice but to talk to the teacher.
In retrospect, without familiarity with Keller’s ARCS model at the time, my initiatives reflected all its elements. My first move was to engage the teacher in his room during his free prep period (I had his Attention). As per our assumptions, he was a willing experimenter with low self-efficacy in the use of whiteboard technology.
During the first session we talked about the importance of exploiting the potential of the technology for purposes of effective teaching and learning (I made the technology Relevant). Subsequent sessions had the teacher practice with hands-on functioning. Technology-based lessons were modeled (we built Confidence). Finally, he taught a technology-based lesson to his classes (Satisfaction was realized).
While many things can be assumed regarding technology in education, many others cannot. One such thing that cannot be assumed is that technology in the classroom is an automatic cause for learning. To those that would make the assumption, I direct them to the first three letters in the word.
Driscoll, M. P. (2005). Psychology of learning for instruction (3rd ed.). Boston: Pearson Education, Inc.
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
8845 MOD 4 Post Reflection - Connectivism
A Thousand Words
A picture is worth a thousand words, someone once expressed. So is a mind map. My own mind map on connectivist learning (previous blog link) is no exception. It very neatly explains how my network has changed the way I learn, articulates important digital tools that best facilitate this learning, and implies how I learn new knowledge when I have questions. Ohh yes it doeoeoess. . . .
It, at once, models Siemens’ notion that in order to best come to grips with the exponential growth of new information, connecting to and through networks is crucial. It illustrates his Three Broad Stages of Connectivist Learning Theory, i.e. First level: Neural Networking, Second Level: Conceptual Networking, and Third Level: Social Networking. It further supports his insistence that knowledge is networked, and that learning is the act of creating and navigating those networks. (Laureate, 2008)
My mind map is a resounding acknowledgment of these, and in this manner all three stages described are prominent. I use the computer as an analog for the brain (neural network administrator), and highlight the role that concept (knowledge) plays in networked learning. Therein also, I represent the social network as an additional node for conceptual input and output. “Connectivist learning requires mashups, or taking content and ideas that others have produced and reusing and repurposing them in different contexts.” (Laureate, 2008)
‘To know’ is no longer a result of massive personal memorization of detail; it is instead, a confident exploitation of content rich networks. Connecting effectively to these then becomes the critical element. In this regard, I could have cited the thousand words in my mind map.
Laureate Education, Inc. (Producer). (2008). Connectivism learning theory featuring Dr. George Siemens.
A picture is worth a thousand words, someone once expressed. So is a mind map. My own mind map on connectivist learning (previous blog link) is no exception. It very neatly explains how my network has changed the way I learn, articulates important digital tools that best facilitate this learning, and implies how I learn new knowledge when I have questions. Ohh yes it doeoeoess. . . .
It, at once, models Siemens’ notion that in order to best come to grips with the exponential growth of new information, connecting to and through networks is crucial. It illustrates his Three Broad Stages of Connectivist Learning Theory, i.e. First level: Neural Networking, Second Level: Conceptual Networking, and Third Level: Social Networking. It further supports his insistence that knowledge is networked, and that learning is the act of creating and navigating those networks. (Laureate, 2008)
My mind map is a resounding acknowledgment of these, and in this manner all three stages described are prominent. I use the computer as an analog for the brain (neural network administrator), and highlight the role that concept (knowledge) plays in networked learning. Therein also, I represent the social network as an additional node for conceptual input and output. “Connectivist learning requires mashups, or taking content and ideas that others have produced and reusing and repurposing them in different contexts.” (Laureate, 2008)
‘To know’ is no longer a result of massive personal memorization of detail; it is instead, a confident exploitation of content rich networks. Connecting effectively to these then becomes the critical element. In this regard, I could have cited the thousand words in my mind map.
Laureate Education, Inc. (Producer). (2008). Connectivism learning theory featuring Dr. George Siemens.
Monday, April 12, 2010
MOD 3 Blog - 8845
Instinct
Instinct is defined as an innate tendency or response of a given species to act in ways that are essential to its existence, development, and preservation. This definition implies that causes that affect these latter can be manipulated by external forces. During the agricultural age, families instinctually worked the land collaboratively for their existence and preservation. Before then, collaborative hunting and gathering within larger communities for the same purposes was prevalent.
Collaborations during the agricultural age did not, however, preclude the instinctual self-interests of competing farmers or plundering desperados. Nor were the hunters and gatherers safe from warring communities whose intent was territorial domination. In this manner, it can be seen that the decision to operate alone or cooperatively is a function of one’s perception of existence and self-preservation at the moment. Instinctually, one is able to do either. Moreover, the previous accounts indicate that both can, and do coexist. The question then becomes, which instinct dominates the moment?
At the onset of the industrial age, reliance on family collaboration was mitigated by a redefined need for existence and preservation. This new perspective was borne of the necessity to leave the farms to relocate to industrial centers, and then to separate from the wife and children for long hours to go earn a living in factories. This emphasis persists in today’s classrooms, where the moment is dominated by self-reliant traditional instruction.
While, like in society at-large, there is growing acceptance of the need for collaborative means, different from larger society, there exists a dearth of the trust necessary to facilitate cooperative learning in education. The macro-society appears to be modeling a trust in technologies that have realized such latter-day collaborative accomplishments as the Genome Project, CERN Particle Accelerator, and development of the Big Bang Theory, solutions that could not have been realized otherwise. In this regard, a teacher too, must trust in the virtues of the educational technologies that would leverage the power of constructivist collaboration in education. Therein, survival is defined in terms of teaching and learning.
As exemplified previously, students too have the instinctual capacity for learning either individually or collaboratively. It is the teacher’s role to manipulate the classroom micro-society and environment to connect to these instincts. Trusting in technology will aid in this process.
Trust is defined as a confident reliance on the integrity, honesty, veracity, or justice of another: It is not innately instinctual; collaborative learning is. In order to tap the instincts for collaborative learning in our students, trust for educational technology must be engendered.
Rheingold, H. (2008). Howard Rheingold: Way-New collaboration. Retrieved on April 12, 2010 from
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/howard_rheingold_on_collaboration.html
Instinct is defined as an innate tendency or response of a given species to act in ways that are essential to its existence, development, and preservation. This definition implies that causes that affect these latter can be manipulated by external forces. During the agricultural age, families instinctually worked the land collaboratively for their existence and preservation. Before then, collaborative hunting and gathering within larger communities for the same purposes was prevalent.
Collaborations during the agricultural age did not, however, preclude the instinctual self-interests of competing farmers or plundering desperados. Nor were the hunters and gatherers safe from warring communities whose intent was territorial domination. In this manner, it can be seen that the decision to operate alone or cooperatively is a function of one’s perception of existence and self-preservation at the moment. Instinctually, one is able to do either. Moreover, the previous accounts indicate that both can, and do coexist. The question then becomes, which instinct dominates the moment?
At the onset of the industrial age, reliance on family collaboration was mitigated by a redefined need for existence and preservation. This new perspective was borne of the necessity to leave the farms to relocate to industrial centers, and then to separate from the wife and children for long hours to go earn a living in factories. This emphasis persists in today’s classrooms, where the moment is dominated by self-reliant traditional instruction.
While, like in society at-large, there is growing acceptance of the need for collaborative means, different from larger society, there exists a dearth of the trust necessary to facilitate cooperative learning in education. The macro-society appears to be modeling a trust in technologies that have realized such latter-day collaborative accomplishments as the Genome Project, CERN Particle Accelerator, and development of the Big Bang Theory, solutions that could not have been realized otherwise. In this regard, a teacher too, must trust in the virtues of the educational technologies that would leverage the power of constructivist collaboration in education. Therein, survival is defined in terms of teaching and learning.
As exemplified previously, students too have the instinctual capacity for learning either individually or collaboratively. It is the teacher’s role to manipulate the classroom micro-society and environment to connect to these instincts. Trusting in technology will aid in this process.
Trust is defined as a confident reliance on the integrity, honesty, veracity, or justice of another: It is not innately instinctual; collaborative learning is. In order to tap the instincts for collaborative learning in our students, trust for educational technology must be engendered.
Rheingold, H. (2008). Howard Rheingold: Way-New collaboration. Retrieved on April 12, 2010 from
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/howard_rheingold_on_collaboration.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
