EdTech 504 - Final Thoughts

I know that this coming school year will be one of change in my classroom because of the things I learned in this class. The course provided me with a definite foundation of theories on which to design and implement instruction. In addition, it will help me become a better guide in my perceptions and actions in daily classroom activity. However, exploring ideas from age old to brand new and emerging has developed my desire to make an impact on the world using this knowledge.

My family, wife and two kids, are not planning on staying in the area we live (and I grew up) for an extended time period of time. Our ideas of the future possibly involve living outside the United States teaching in an international school and/or becoming involved in education in another city or town in the country. Options seem wide open right now. Education has become my passion and heartbeat in the last 10 years of my life. I find a depth of rewards in teaching and the inherent learning that goes on in the process. I feel this program, and especially this class has transported my learning by leaps and bounds ahead the knowledge from experience that taught me so much in my first 5 years of practice. In conversations with my wife this summer I have been talking about how I could apply these things in my class this next year, but also in our future goals as educators.

As I said in the last post, I hold to the idea that what I believe will naturally flow out of my words and actions as an educator. I feel my beliefs have changed in many ways as I look back on my reflections from the past 7 weeks.

I now better understand:

• Knowledge and the ways of gaining knowledge in a totally different light
• Behaviorism as a helpful tool to understand learning and providing some instruction
• The importance of helping students form cognitive connections in learning
• The need to highly support students need in constructing their own knowledge and considerations to take in instructional design
• The application of research-based motivation in classroom practices
• An application for the interconnectedness of many different learning theories and an openness to more theories than previous beliefs
• How to critically analyze work that is above my head in an annotated bibliography
• How to cite papers in correct APA format (hopefully!)
• And much more...

I do not know what the future has in store, but I know that I will look back on this class as a real foundation to my idea of educational technology. When I started this program in the summer of 2008 I was ready to learn about Web 2.0 tools, web design, and ways to get my kids to use computers more in the learning process. I am now leaving this program with so much more than a better understanding of “computers and kids.” The process of providing effective, efficient learning has a potential to serve so many people by improving learning and providing a better quality of life. This is even if technology tools are not considered in design and implementation of instruction. The addition of access and consideration of technology tools in design opens exciting and seemingly endless possibilities in instruction. Education promotes change. If I am able to apply the things I learn in this class in a way that improves the quality of life of even one person I believe I will find satisfaction in goals. My hope, however, is to impact many more.

Module 07: More on Emerging Theories

This week I read more into theories of connectivism presented last week and started to read Seymour Papert’s The Children’s Machine, while skimming the remainder of the book before this post.

The articles on connectivism presented the learning theory as an improvement on past learning theories more relevant for 21st century learners and technology. Foundational concepts include knowledge as something that exists outside ourselves, not a entity. Learning is characterized as making connections and displaying the ability to construct and send information across connections. Connections can be both neural and through networks of people, databases and other informational systems.

The Children’s Machine seems to be a call for a massive shift in the current education system. Papert asserts education needs to shift from a system that provides knowledge to something that allows students to learn to provide themselves with knowledge in the context of the creation of a physical item. He divides people involved in academics into two categories based on actions over intentions, Schoolers and Yearners. “Schoolers” are people who recognize a problem but only look for quick fixes to these problems. While “yearners” are quite different: they are people who focus on shifting the paradigm of what it means to be educated and provide tools and instruction to students in smaller schools. He suggests the role of computers as tools that help students make connections, not an isolated skill or subject as many school assign them to be. His only reservation toward this type of schooling seems to be on elitism that could emerge. He compares education to the entity of the USSR providing the illusion to a good education, but not actually providing it.

I am learning what it means to learn and gain knowledge is a complex and ever-changing idea. Behavioral, cognitive, and constructional theories do not tell a complete story and shape education in possibly less effective ways than that that may be discovered. There are sure to be further developments in future thinking/learning theories and as technology evolves in the way it records and stores information. I have always viewed learning as something that happens inside someone alone, but the fact that patterns exist outside of what is held in the mind or has been conceived by the any brain is a radical concept that I am just beginning to wrap my mind around. The implications of this type of understanding could be revolutionary to learning and education.

An understanding that the pipe is more important than what is in the pipe as Siemens asserts, will help me to strive for looking for ways to help my students make connections and provide support and encouragement when my students make connections. While I do not know how this will look, I believe I can be a motivator of good thinking in my classroom. I hold the belief that what I believe naturally comes out of my mouth and can be seen in my actions. If I truly believe that I can be an agent of change in my students lives, I believe my actions in the classroom will reflect this shift.

The discussion board this week has focused on connectivism and the relation of this theory in special education. Understanding that the starting point of connectivism is an individual and special education revolves around individualized instruction, we discussed how we might frame education for specific learners. This discussion was helpful to me because individualized instruction is something that I deal with everyday in the classroom, but I was able to rethink this concept. Further, I was able to really look into the theory of connectivism and explore the implications of this revolutionary educational theory. We came up with ideas of how students can gain for themselves an individualized education. This relies on the student, the instructor, and the instructional institution. Instructional organizations need to understand that learning how to learn is more important than providing students with general knowledge. Instructors need to play the role of guides in this process, modeling how this can be actually done. Finally, students need to be open to learning and take autonomy provided in the learning process seriously. A belief I hold to in life is that you get out of things what you put into them. The more effort you put into learning, the more learning you will get out of it.

Module 06: A Closer Look at Emerging Theories

In his article Constructivism as a High-Tech Intervention Strategy for At-Risk Learners, Gary Stager describes the implementation of a Constructionist Learning Laboratory (CLL) for at-risk students in Maine. The program uses a model developed by Seymour Papert, which emphasizes creation of tangible artifacts to connect students to “powerful ideas” of the engineering process. Students at the learning center created the many devices using LEGO bricks, programmable microprocessors, gears, and sensors. Examples of student projects include: a temperature sensitive soda vending machine and a working scale model of an infrared sensing baggage conveyor belt. Students used technology and personal computers to do much more than design and program the machines. They researched, wrote letters to professionals, made presentations, and much more using personal computers. This article shows the importance of free choice in instruction, teacher guidance in constructionism, and the student use of technology tools to create useful knowledge.

Similarly, Designing, Developing, and Implementing a Course on LEGO Robotics for Technology Teacher Education exposes Paperts constructivist environment to instruct teachers on the uses of robotics in education. This article provides research on Mindtools, or tools that support higher-level thinking and learning processes. The tool of use in this article is also LEGO’s RoboLab. RoboLab was specifically developed for teachers with little or no computer programming and uses a windows -based graphical user interface to program the robots. Instruction revolved around learning programming language and building and programming a robot to solve a common task. Results of instruction are presented as positive for each participant. The most “intense” learning revolved around the creation, programming, and many test trials of the robots. Students in the course reported use of higher order thinking skills and connection to personal curriculum objectives. However, cost, space, and time were reasons a teacher may not implement the program.

After reading these articles I can see the power of giving students materials and freedom to create in instruction. The products students create reflect connections they make in their mind. I was amazed at the machines created by students in the Maine classroom. The products students create are not just reflections of connections, but can be used as a conversation piece from an instructor’s point of view to allow dialogue that guides students to make even more connections. It seems giving students chances to create something out of nothing lends itself to more natural forms of the learning process. I was thinking that most things we do of meaning in life are found in the creation paradigm. Many occupations and relationships are founded on building something out of nothing. If students can create Lego Robots they can use this success to provide motivation to help them create other objects, concepts, or ideas for example art for the community, knowledge in a work place, or even an idea that will change the world.

I believe I can take this idea of the importance of creation in education and use it to design and implement instruction that involves the creation of objects in my science class. I have been thinking about finding ways to use the knowledge of the Lego Robots in my classroom. The main things that limit this type of instruction are state mandated teaching/testing of standards and budgets. After reading the articles I think two things are very important to implementation of a constructionist lesson: 1.) obtaining the right amount of materials/equipment that allow for free construction and 2.) an instructor with good background knowledge on how to create with the constructionist tool and also good background knowledge to provide proper guidance of learning. I would not implement a program like the one in Maine unless I felt I was able to acquire both of these things. Compared to other forms of instruction, the cost of materials and training in this type of instruction seem to be high.

This brings me to another thing I have been considering this week: the state of the current public school system in relation to constructivist learning. In the discussion boards our leader directed our conversation to think about how constructivism fits into our current school system, which for me is a public school in Pennsylvania. I am thankful for the freedom my administrators give to our teaching staff, however, our instruction is still very much dictated by high-stakes testing and school budgetary concerns. I believe both of these factors (test scores and money) drive much of the constructs under which I work. I also believe these two things are in opposition to constructivist learning. This week I have been talking to my wife, who whether she likes it or not has become a recipient of knowledge from EDTECH 504 this summer. I gave her my thoughts on the public school and it’s obsession with normative evaluative testing. I also explained to her at one point how much I was looking forward to finishing my reading tests for the class so I could write my paper (a personal goal of mine). My wife, a former grad student herself, told me she would much rather take tests than write papers. She said she liked knowing what to study and the safety of providing the answer the teacher wanted to get a good grade. This made me think that some of my students must think the same way when I introduce another project or item they are expected to create in my class. From a teachers standpoint I do not like testing. Grading tests is obviously not a party and testing lacks the ability to inform me of key skills, habits, and higher order thinking my students are demonstrating. So which is better instruction driven by objectives and testing, or instruction driven by discovery and creation? My conclusion at this point is this: educational technology is about bringing instruction to students that is both effective AND efficient. While constructivist lessons, properly designed can be extremely effective, testing provides one of the most efficient ways to demonstrate learning of facts and concepts. This leads to believe that a balance is needed in the design of instruction.

One final anecdote relating to all of this: Inspired by all of my reading on constructionism I brought home some K-nex building supplies from my classroom this week and my almost 3-year-old son was THIRLLED to help me build a crane for him. I was surprised by his almost immediate and sustained enthusiasm during the project. It reminded me of something that seems inherent (but metacognitivly unknown) in kids even from a very early age, the excitement to create.

Module 05: A Closer Look at Constructivism

In his article The Real World on a Short Leash: The (Mis)Application of Constructivism to the Design of Educational Technology, Joseph Petraglia offers a background on the theory behind constructivist teaching strategy and commentary on the current state of the design of instruction from a constructivist viewpoint. Petraglia goes on to assert that it is often decided, even assumed that constructivist instruction needs to be taught in “authentic” learning environments. The main concern that the author has with this viewpoint is it assumes too soon something for instruction that should be considered as an option in the process of instructional design. Authentic environments and ill-defined problems may not be the best way for students to learn an idea, concept or skill because they are not always the best structure for learning. The author concludes his article by giving a prescription for better structuring constructivist learning, the use of rhetoric.

In Constructing on Constructivism: The Role of Technology the authors provide reasons why technology and constructivism provide harmony in instruction. Fundamentals of both disciplines are explained and examples are provided. This article mostly pulls together basic research and concepts on the subject, but provides helpful rudiments from which to discuss the merits of technology in effective education.

I am learning that the place of a teacher in constructivist instruction is one that is highly involved in effective designing of quality instruction. In fact, this type of instruction requires much more expertise and time to create instruction that is effective. In addition, I am learning that implementation of constructivist teaching involves much more, as said in the Nanjappa, Grant article, “coaching, modeling, and scaffolding” to help each learner construct knowledge. The teacher must become highly involved in at very least understanding students learning, but most likely providing guidance, encouragement, and support in the midst of learning processes. In addition, efficiency of learning is highly dependent on the organization of resources. This scaffolding process is important especially in web-based activities when the whole of the Internet is situated before students.

I believe I too often fell into a mentality in constructivist teaching of “hanging back” and letting students “learn.” I think this came from an idea that problem solving in the real world does not always provide help. However, I need to understand that as a teacher my responsibility to provide the most effective and efficient instruction to my students comes first and foremost. I believe there will still be times for “hanging back” in my instruction. Yet, I need to balance this strategy with many more when I design and implement instruction in a classroom. The use of rhetoric in instruction is a great suggestion that I plan to begin to implement more. I will now try to pay more attention to understanding where learners are and posing better questions in the midst of learning. I believe proper use of rhetoric, modeling, scaffolding and coaching in instructive instruction will not only provide richer, more effective learning experiences, but also provide motivation to students as the press on in learning.

The most valuable interactions I have been having this week come in my everyday experiences with my family and my thoughts about this coming school year. Possibly because I am always in the process of reading something in this class, the different concepts and ideas I am learning are always looking for ways to make connections into my life. I am noticing that as a father I am often more willing to look at behavioral aspects when teaching my son right and wrong. My wife on the other hand looks at our son with more a more cognitive perspective. This example has helped me to understand parents of my students who always seem to “make excuses” for their son or daughter both academically and behaviorally. Maybe parents are not making excuses as much as they are helping a teacher understand their child who they understand much more deeply and cognitively. In addition, many parents today were educated by instructors that historically taught and dealt with problems from a much more behavioral perspective. Although this perspective may be more efficient (less time consuming) in trying to understand a child, it may not be the most effective way. I will go into teaching this next school year at very least with this thought in my head. I believe it has potential to help me make better decisions on how to better instruct and guide a student.

Module 04: A Closer Look at Cognitivism

The Mind and Brain chapter from How People Learn: Brian, Mind, Experience, and School focuses on research-backed information on the biological changes that the brain goes through from birth into development and the consequential effects on learning. From the start the author refutes “pop-conceptions” such as right-brain/left-brain dominance and replaces them with research in such areas as neuroscience and cognitive science. Many of the studies describe animals put in different situations then analyzed for changes in the brain. Synaptic connections as well as the ability of the brain to organize and reorganize information are featured in the chapter as playing a major role in ability to learn.

Research on Cognitive Load Theory and Its Design Implications for E-Learning by Jeroen J.G. van Merrienboer and Paul Ayres describes the founding concepts of the Cognitive Load Theory (CLT) and present recent research on this theory as it applies to learning. CLT asserts that the brain can only process so much information and the theory seeks to make this processing easier and more efficient. Ways this is done include decreasing intrinsic cognitive load (what is already inside a learner), decreasing extrinsic cognitive load (how instruction is presented), and increasing germane cognitive load (willingness or motivation to free up space for learning). Much of the research noted by the authors asserts the key to using the CLT is in understanding the experience level of the learner and applying CLT informed instruction to this diagnosis. This not only decreases intrinsic cognitive load, but also provides motivation to the learner.

I have been thinking this week of the extreme importance finding the experience level of learners to motivation and effective, efficient learning. One thought I had is how do you do this with class sizes nearing 30 and students at least 5 new students arriving into the classroom who are new to the district? I would love to be able to meet with each student and understand what he or she knows, does not know and provide individual solutions to these processes. Yet, it seems time, at least as I have used it so far in my career, does not seem to allow for this. Does there exists processes and tools that I do not know about that would assist me as an instructor in making my instruction more effective to each student I teach?

I believe that I will pay much more attention to the previous experience of students in my classes. In addition, I will pay attention to the perquisite skills that I may need to provide students who do not have experience in order to make instruction more effective and meaningful to them. Gagne recommends learning hierarchies. I feel having (or creating) this piece of information would be very helpful to an instructor teaching a lesson. Another thing that I will take away from the readings this week is the importance of helping students organize and reorganize information. I hope create more concept mapping activities for students in my classes this year. This is a beneficial way to help them cognitively organize information.

I had some great interactions with students in the discussion forum this week. We discussed the importance of technology on the behaviors of people from a cultural perspective. Among other ideas, this discussion opened my eyes to the importance that is placed on technology to bring a free flow of information to the world. The question that I ask here that I hoped the discussion would go toward is: Does technology make people happy? I did not come out and ask this on the board and the conversation all went toward the benefits of technology. In spite of that, I believe Skinner (1986) in the article we discussed was looking at the world and seeing people unfulfilled by things that were easily “looked at and listened to.” He believed mankind would be happier if they did not rely on technology so much as it was so new to the evolutionary history of people. While my feelings on the matter (not voiced on the boards) are technology itself cannot make people happy. I personally believe far more organic and spiritual things do this. Yet, it cannot be denied that technology is a powerful tool to bring about positive worldwide change. This positive change can help people live lives more informed and free. Therefore, this in turn gives them a better opportunity to find happiness.

Skinner, B.F. (1986) What is wrong with daily life in the western world? American Psychologist, 1986, 41, 568-74.

Module 03: A Closer Look at Behaviorism

In the article Behaviorism and Instructional Technology the authors (Burton, More, Magliaro, 1996) give a broad overview of behaviorism and the historic implications the focus has made on educational technology from conception to current day practices. The authors assert that behaviorism is not only a natural, unified way of understanding learning but the most effective viewpoint to consider (1) in academic discussion, (2) to use in instructional design systems, and (3) to apply in modern learning practices. While the authors believe a dualistic interpretation of the mind only further confuses the understanding of learning, they offer some commonalities held by both the constructivist and behaviorist viewpoints. Despite the prevailing skepticism and misinterpretations that follow the educational practice, the authors provide many examples (PSI, LFM, Direct Instruction etc.) that seek to prove learning from a behaviorist standpoint makes learning more effective, efficient and therefore more cost-effective.

I learned from reading the Burton (et al.) article that although the constructivist and behaviorist viewpoints have distinct differences, there exist connections between the two ideas. For example, both perspectives imply that a learner needs to be an active participant in the learning process. Before reading this article my ideas of learning in the eyes of a behaviorist included a learner passively taking in ideas from an instructor. If such an extreme example of my understanding of behaviorism is wrong, I am left to wonder in what other ways are the theories alike. I was particularly interested in the evidence presented on the efficiency of The Morningside Model. This model doubled learning from one grade level to two in 100 hours of instruction.

The aforementioned examples as well as others presented in this article help me to look at behaviorism with new eyes. I am now more likely to consider and integrate this viewpoint into instructional practices. For example, when I am faced with teaching a particular skill or concept I will now consider providing instruction in smaller increments and give more frequent, smaller tests. I will also look for ways to provide rapid feedback for my students as often as possible. In addition, I will ask myself which ideas could be more efficiently covered using a more direct approach to instruction.

The discussion lead by Justin Reeve on epistemology has been a valuable learning experience this week. We discussed the shifting trends of obtaining knowledge from a more formalized, classic approach to community-organized and collectively approved approach. This discussion helped me to consider a basic concept of learning: knowledge. In the discussion we considered what knowledge is, effective sources of acquiring knowledge, and the validity of how we know facts are true. This helped me to understand more completely the importance of considering my views when it comes to epistemology. I believe socially-approved ideas can be valid. One does not need to have a certificate to claim ideas to be true. Yet, we still need to exercise caution when learning from any source, Wikipedia to works published in a journal. I do not believe learning will ever be fully complete. There will always be debate and room for interpretation when it comes to "facts."

Module 02: Epistemological Foundations

In A Seismic Shift in Epistemology Dede draws a distinction between a new Web 2.0 and a classical way of communicating knowledge. While he emphasizes the stark contrast between of both ways of learning, he asserts that both views have important offerings to learning. His position on bias in textbooks shows the importance of websites like Wikipedia. In the end he recommends finding a common ground between both ways of gaining knowledge as both offer benefits.

In Epistemology, introduction Heylighen offers a brief history of epistemological traditions from Greek philosophers to more recent ideas like memetics. At the end of the article he warns against choosing one criteria on which to base our thinking. Because knowledge is such so broad, we need to view it from many different perspectives.

I suppose it is a human reaction to pick sides. I know as I read the ideas put forth in our text and readings I am quick to decide which idea I like the “best” or find to be the most “valid.” However, I am learning that the best philosophy when reading a wide variety of thoughts is to try my best to make personal connections with all theories. After all, the people who founded these thoughts did so after taking much into consideration. Furthermore, they stood the test of time and consensus to make it into text books and into this course.

I also have a better respect for Wikipedia after reading A Seismic Shift in Epistemology. I really connected with the point Dede makes about cultural bias in textbooks. Adding “dimensions of human experience” into knowledge provides a consensus that, used in conjunction with more classical methods of obtaining information, can provide a powerful source of information. In the future I plan to cross reference a site like Wikipedia when researching to gain another perspective on what I am studying. As mentioned before another influence on my actions in the reading is to make connections with all theories from my personal experience. I feel this will help me not only understand others ideas better, but also might help in altering behaviors that are contradictory to valid theories.

My interactions with our text has proven to be most valuable this week. In the past I feel I gave behaviorism a bit of a “cold shoulder.” Yet, after reading in depth about Skinner’s ideas I feel I can approach some situations in classroom management and in educational technology with a clearer mind. Maybe it is because I have a two-year-old in the house now (with potty training just around the corner) but the weight of ideas like shaping have become much stronger to me than in the past. When considered next to more constructivist viewpoints both sides of the spectrum seem to have much to offer to instruction.

Module 01: The Big Picture & The Place of Theory

The Blacker and McKie chapter clearly lays out the importance of educational technology as an ambition rather than a tool. This idea is important as the world becomes more and more full of tools. There is potential to allow tools to control our instruction rather than well founded theories and ideas.

The Issroff and Scanlon article talks about the importance of theory in educational technology. It explains how theory should guide our design of educational technology as well as our understanding of the new tools that are constantly featured as “cutting edge.”

The readings and discussions this week have forced me to reflect not only about the general importance of theory guiding practice but also what theories guide my personal actions in instruction. I know that I fit in with constructivist, collaborative learning theories, yet I seek to refine my understanding of not only the complexities of these theories, but also some of the other theories that drive my instruction.

Some additional thoughts about how I was influenced and how I can influence those around me. Coming from the Blacker and McKie chapter, I was thinking about what force drives technology tools to continually be pumped into our schools, communities and workplaces. From my perspective and reading the articles it is a desire to take a short cut to success. Businesses and schools think that they can get more for their money if they “buy more stuff.” I feel this idea is very harmful and leads to “the technological tail” wagging “the human dog” as it was so well put. This demands more from the Educational Technology community and gives me a motivation to get a good grasp on the theory and models through the course that could help me make a positive impact on my learning community.

The most valuable things that I have read so far is the first chapter of the Gredler book, the Blacker and McKie chapter, and the discussion about the importance of theory guiding practice. I feel the combination of these readings have really allowed me to gain an appreciation for the schools of thought, theories, and models that exist. With this in mind I feel I have a challenge to soak up as much as I can in these next two months. I feel in doing so I will become a more informed and better handler and conveyor of knowledge at my school and even in life.

EdTech 504 - Theoretical Foundations of Educational Technology

In this blog I will be reflecting on my learning experiences in my current course, EdTech 504, Theoretical Foundations of Educational Technology.