LEARNING NETWORK MIND MAP

peer responses

Commented on Sue’s blog at http://sgudjonis.blogspot.com/ and Amanda at http://educ7105.blogspot.com/

Module 3 On line Collaborative Learning

Rheingold, (2005) discussed that humans have a long history of collaboration going back to such as hunters and gatherers in groups to the creation of the alphabet. This grew the abilities to communicate in groups which grew with the invention of the printing press. Certainly this evolving of technology for communication opened opportunities to get into groups and collaborate. Rheingold argued that it is a human instinct to collaborate. I am not entirely convinced it is based on instinct rather than human need, greed, passions, interests, opportunities, or other. Rheingold (2005) discussed that new technological innovations have thrived and provided humans endless opportunities to network socially and professionally. In addition, we can now connect with others all over the world and work with them to solve problems using the Internet. I can definitely agree that the internet and all of the communication devices provide an unprecedented opportunity for humans to communicate and collaborate and can facilitate learner collaboration. Today, learners can access information and social gathering points on the internet within seconds. Learners have technology available to communicate with individuals and groups through email, voiced, video, text messages, chat, and more. Technology provides the tools and resources learners need to collaborate and problem solve with others. Proof is in this course alone. We have designed individual blogs, posted, and commented to each other each week. We have used the internet to search resources, watch videos, work in Google docs, and more. We have worked in small groups with others all over the country with ease and success using technology such as Skype, cell phones, Google clouds, and more. Communication and collaboration can be instant and both synchronous and asynchronous forms of communication can occur with technology. In the end, technology hands us the tools to communicate and collaborate. It is up to us to access these resources to work with others. Sandy Rheingold, H. (2005). “Howard Rheingold: Way-New Collaboration” Retrieved on July 6, 2010 from http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/howard_rheingold_on_collaboration.html

module 2 responses

Responded to post by Jadasi and Margaret at:

http://margaretmccullough.blogspot.com/

http://jadasi.wordpress.com/

Learning Theory

The experts such as Kerr (2007) and Kapp (2007) expressed that all of the learning theories are important and should be used when designing courses and delivering instruction. Both gentlemen argued that behaviorism, cognitivism, constructivism, and conectivism all offer useful insights. Educators need to use various aspects of all of the philosophies to provide quality learning experiences.

Kapp argued that learning is so complex that at this time, no one single learning theory can explain learning in entirety. Kapp suggested that lower level learning requires a behaviorist approach, procedural and rule-based learning requires an emphasis on cognitivism and, problem-solving, collaboration and creativity require a view of constructivism. In my experience, this seems a somewhat vague description that does not capture learning accurately. For example, it seems trial and error learning would fall under behaviorism yet one could problem solve using trial and error method. One could even collaborate with other using this method to solve a problem. Perhaps the difference would be in efficiency of the strategies one implements to problem solve.

Perhaps the difference is one’s ability to apply existing knowledge to new situation. Perhaps we could say it is about the how, what, who, where, and why of things where the definitive information of who, what, and where are more behaviorist and the how cognitive, and the why constructivist. It is complicated and therefore it seems all necessary and significant to consider all theories when considering the idea of learning and how we approach course design, materials, and methods of delivery.

Downes, S. (2005). An Introduction to Connective Knowledge. Retrieved on June, 24, 2010 from http://www.downes.ca/cgi-bin/page.cgi?post=33034

Downes, S. (2007). How Do You Know? Retrieved on June 24, 2010 from http://www.downes.ca/post/40849

Kapp, K. (2007). Out and About: Discussion on Educational Schools of Thought. Retrieved on June 22, 2010 from http://karlkapp.blogspot.com/2007/01/out-and-about-discussion-on-educational.html

Kerr, B. (2007). _isms as filter, not blinker. Retrieved on June 22, 2010 from http://billkerr2.blogspot.com/2007/01/isms-as-filter-not-blinker.html

Siemens, G. (2004). Connectivism: A Learning Theory for the Digital Age. Retrieved on June 26, 2010 from http://www.elearnspace.org/Articles/connectivism.htm.

module 1 responses

http://evonie-rash.blogspot.com/ http://sgudjonis.blogspot.com/2010/06/module1.html?showComment=1276426400443_AIe9_BE2u7f-b9kW0MbSguZJbSnY0uDFwjC0CdzD9u9eVOKeEZ0RydF_HyT0vG-tCZ2eWzm6f7nedCyHS4jMG5L59cSbE1XtBD8qcdgVkU-yclk7Y59Gz0FWk1yHYb4zBXYpAyOof2L-cnS9uOBdQ2Vdz8gBXvX_9dfUaPvUuhDCxJNYiF94065mv5YwpieXDLuDmkaEujY4MBgMBV7p3ViiP81a8o7WZQ#c458195219264043445 http://thomasharrislearningtheory.blogspot.com/2010/06/thomas-eric-harris-mod-1.html?showComment=1276687982490_AIe9_BHgU-Vemgn4Sdkp0BM2dgvjXNlu4OCCiwXy8wD3lwQ33rNFrzoHLyYWDvfe3SKRPWQALfwhW2BLowrgV4mEA-DFnjxAg8ng-8j2TDcUzTCfwcDNXl1Mqnnx7MoHpR3aI4LXUtCPUHskzx-l7RGKqg74Gc2gkGacyVwJ4dX2UImDtLvDUA4B7MExm7OEYNisbif5g5QQfxGzRry1V95o4tmc1eeMpL9c8NFiVHhUlpIjML9TNV14m4OXJyiHV0UPYsTIyCm_#c3821461941247215296 Above are links to my peers' blogs that I commented on. Sandy

LEARNING THEORY MODULE 1

Similar to my philosophy of face to face education with elementary children, my philosophy of distance education is a strong constructivist approach. With that said, my philosophy also includes some aspects of behaviorist and cognitivist approaches. Given these beliefs I trust more learners will be motivated, engaged, and able to use their strengths and learning styles. According to Anderson (2008), the constructivist view holds that learners interpret the world differently and gain knowledge by observing, translating, processing, and personalizing information connected to their experiences all in order to gain meaning. Boghossian (2006) argued that constructivist approaches can have a variety of names such as inquiry based learning, problem centered learning, differentiated instruction, discovery learning, and others. This includes flexible delivery, flexible learning, situated cognition, and workplace learning. Given these views, my teaching is often inquiry based and directly related to learners’ activities and interests. It allows for their unique interpretations of classroom activities. Altun and Buyukduman (2007) discussed constructivist teaching as being much more facilitative than a traditional teaching approach. Constructivist methods also allow the learners to participate in deciding instructional matters thus creating crossover of roles among students and instructors. My instructional design includes relationships between instructors and learners as reciprocal within the structure provided. Instructors would guide and facilitate learning while also giving autonomy to learners to determine what they learn whether in second grade or graduate school. In addition, assessment in constructivism can be more subjective than traditional assessments of learning and emphasis is placed on students’ self-assessments. Mueller (2005) provided data that contrasted the traditional styles of assessment such as multiple choice tests with authentic assessment styles. These contrasting concepts included: Traditional Authentic selection of responses performance tasks contrived real-life recall/recognition construction/application teacher structured learner structured indirect evidence direct evidence Assessment in my design is authentic and will measures student success in attaining the predetermined learning goals. Learners will be provided a detailed rubric to inform them of the required quality of the work being assessed. Through small group work, learners will be allowed to provide each other feedback so they can strengthen their products thus informal peer assessment will occur. Additionally, learners demonstrate how they were all involved in the projects, and how well they collaborated and made decisions. Required participation in discussions will also occur and serve as one form of formative assessment. A summative assessment will also be provided and will be based on the components of the rubric in determining to what extent students met the learning goals. Authentic assessments are combined with other formal measures to determine what has been learned. Classroom management is another key factor for successful learning. In class, there be face to face instructor meetings with groups as classroom management of the project steps as well as group interactions. Teachers may guide learners through any problem solving that may be needed. For learners with unique behavioral needs, a strong behaviorist approach is implemented to diminish undesirable behaviors and replace them with new behaviors. This may include a chart for data keeping, and a variety of scheduled rewards and consequences to meet individual needs. The purpose of learning theory in technology is to provide a foundation for course design and instruction. A variety of theories allow one to create a variety of avenues to teach a diverse student group. References Altun, S., & Büyükduman, F. (2007, January). Teacher and Student Beliefs on Constructivist Instructional Design: A Case Study. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 7(1), 30-39. Anderson, T. (Ed.). (2008). The theory and practice of online learning (2nd ed.). Edmonton, Alberta, Canada: Athabasca University Press. Boghossian, P. (2006, December). Behaviorism, Constructivism, and Socratic Pedagogy. Educational Philosophy & Theory, 38(6), 713-722. Clark, D. (2004). A brief history of instructional system design. Retrieved from http://www.nwlink.com/~donclark/history_isd/isdhistory.html Lee, H. S., & Lee. S. Y. (n.d.). Dick and Carey model. Retrieved February 2, 2009, from http://www.umich.edu/%7Eed626/Dick_Carey/dc.html Mueller, J. (2005, April). AUTHENTIC ASSESSMENT in the CLASSROOM... and the LIBRARY MEDIA CENTER. Library Media Connection, 23(7), 14-18. Retrieved August 21, 2008, from Academic Search Premier database. Siemens, G. (2002, September 30). Instructional design in elearning. Retrieved from http://www.elearnspace.org/Articles/InstructionalDesign.htm The ADDIE Model located at http://www.learning-theories.com/addie-model.html The ASSURE Model located at http://www.ou.edu/class/eipt3043/assure.html