Essentials of Learning

In this week's assignment, we've been asked to answer the question, "What do you believe is critical and non-negotiable in teaching and learning?"

When I was growing up, the Grinch was on television once per year. On one evening in December, for one half hour, you had your chance to watch the Grinch. If you missed it, too bad, you had to wait another year for the Grinch to come around. In today's world of streaming video, Netflix, and DVDs, it would be absurd for us to have to wait for the Grinch for a whole year if we missed it. However, this is exactly what happens in thousands of schools each year. If a student doesn't understand fractions during the week they are taught, he or she often has to wait a year for the content to come around again. The simple fact is that many of our schools are teaching as if they were ABC in 1968.

I believe that it is both critical and non-negotiable that teaching and learning step forward and embrace technology to finally personalize education for today's students. For too long, education has used a classroom model where students move at a one-pace-fits-all rate. It is time to used blended models, flipped classrooms, effective video, and digital resources to transform today's classrooms into learning centers where every student can get the learning they need at the exact moment they need it.

Doing so aligns nicely with both constructivist (Driscoll, 2005) and connectivist (Siemens, 2008) learning theories. Blended and flipped learning plays well into the constructivist camp in that students are often given choice of both content and pace. This allows them to build and create learning rather than simply understanding fixed pathways of learning. By adding technology to the mix, students can connect beyond their classrooms to build and tap into personal learning networks that enrich learning even further. Increasing the effective use of technology in today's schools is a non-negotiable factor and critical to improving teaching and learning in our country.

References

Driscoll, M. P. (2005). Psychology of learning for instruction (3rd ed.). Boston: Pearson Education, Inc.

Siemens, G. (2008, January 27). Learning and knowing in networks: Changing roles for educators and designers. Paper presented to ITFORUM. Retrieved from http://itforum.coe.uga.edu/Paper105/Siemens.pdf

Motivation in Technology

Our blog post assignment for this week is to describe a situation in which you've introduced an element of technology to people and were met with resistance, then to consider how Keller's ARCS model could be used to create a more positive experience.

I think I'm lucky in this regard, because my entire job as an Innovation Facilitator centers on introducing new projects and technologies to educators, and I can think of quite a few experiences, especially in the beginning of my work with professional development, where technologies and ideas were met with resistance.

Matter of fact, what immediately comes to mind is a training I ran with a colleague for a subset of our teacher population that is known for let's say, not being the most receptive to technology. Over the course of one semester, we tried a number of unsuccessful training sessions centered on various technologies and software. 

In terms of attitudes and behaviors, one of the things that struck me was the group's overall lack of interest in learning new things. Body language was often poor before sessions even started. They were also fairly quick to make negative comments when something would go wrong. For example, if a video wouldn't play, they were quick to make comments along the lines of, "See, this doesn't work. This stuff never works." It was an extraordinarily frustrating experience to walk in to, as apparently the behavior had become somewhat engrained in the group. Needless to say, our initial sessions were unproductive.

In the spring, however, we tried a completely different approach to the training and things went much better. In retrospect, I think we accidentally stumbled onto elements of the ARCS model, which led to the turnaround.

As Driscoll (2005) describes, the ARCS model consists of four elements that can enhance student motivation to learn: attention, relevance, confidence, and satisfaction. In our earlier trainings, I felt like we were working quite hard to get participants' attention, and that our presentations and activities were engaging and well organized. 

Where we missed, however, was the RCS elements of the model. In particular, we did a poor job of bringing training sessions that were relevant to the participants' workday. Even when we created a custom training session on a topic of their request, we soon discovered that they either really didn't need that particular tool, or that they didn't have the fundamental skills down to be able to use that tool without backing up and learning other things first. Confidence was a huge issue for the group as well. We discovered later on that the group had some rather significant confidence issues with technology, and that the complaining that the technology wasn't working was often just an attempt to circumvent exposing that fact that they lacked the most basic skills. Lastly, there was very little to no satisfaction with anything that happened in the sessions.

What worked for us in the spring to completely change the effectiveness of the training sessions was to concentrate on learning the things they did as part of their workday. Once we had a better idea of what their day-to-day jobs entailed, we were better able to bring tools that were more relevant to their work lives. Secondly, we ran a very basic session that tried to address the confidence issues we'd seen in the fall, and it work very well. We brought out into the open the fact that it was okay if you didn't know how to do something with technology, that it's okay if something breaks when you try to use. We stressed that as trainers we often break things, get stuck, and don't know how to do things with technology. That's all okay. What's important, however, is that we move forward, one step at a time. This session did wonders to bolster the group's confidence and alleviate their fear of technology.

As we addressed these two issues, and ran more relevant sessions designed to build confidence, we found that satisfaction went way up. Participants' body language changed completely, and the results they achieved and the satisfaction they reported were night and day from the early fall.

References
Driscoll, M. P. (2005). Psychology of learning for instruction (3rd ed.). Boston: Pearson Education, Inc.

Photo Credit:
Student sleeping: Gnurou, via Flickr, Creative Commons License

Connectivism Network

Our task this week is to create a Bubbl mind map for how we learn in order to examine our connectivist networks. I've chosen to focus on how I learn about education. Here is a look at how mine turned out:

With regards to this map, we're asked to answer the following three questions:

How has your network changed the way you learn?

To a degree, I think this question is a bit backwards. I think for my generation and learning habits, the question is more "How has the way I've learned changed my network?" It's somewhat of a chicken-and-egg type question, but for me, it's been more of a willful effort to change my network to be more engaged and connected. Connectivism doesn't come naturally to me. I'm much more cognitive and constructivist by nature.

So for me, it's taken determined efforts at engaging in social media and internet forums. The network didn't change me, I changed and adapted to the network.

Having said that, compared to four or five years ago, I'm much more of a connectivist learner than I ever imagined. I keep abreast of developments in education and educational technology through Twitter, am highly involved in our Innovation Forum (all are welcome to join) at work, where several dozen active posters share and develop new ideas on education 24 hours a day, seven days a week. I use Google Docs to share, edit, revise, and collaborate on projects. It's been an amazing transformation for me over the past three years, and I feel more connected, faster at learning, and filled with information than I did at any point in my past.

Which digital tools best facilitate learning for you?

In the past two years, I've been amazed at the efficiency of two tools: Twitter and our Innovation Forum. I love to follow the Twitter #edtech and #edchat hashtags. I can spend about 30 minutes there a day and learn so much about what is developing in education and educational technology. More so, I can engage in conversation about the news and ideas that I'm reading. I've started building a list of my favorite Tweeters. This is very much a work in progress, but I hope it develops into an even better source of information.

I also spend about two hours a week on our district's Innovation Forum. This is a digital version of Steven Johnson's collaborative tea houses, and it serves as a place for me to connect with other educators interesting in innovation. We share ideas, information, and half-ideas freely. We've had this running now for about two and a half years, and we now have more than 500 members and 6,000 posts.




How do you learn new knowledge when you have questions?

My first inclination is to "Google it." No matter how connected I am, I think my most efficient path to an answer is an effective Google search. Over the past ten years, I think that I've gotten much better at searching, and that searching has in itself gotten more efficient.

My second act would be to post on our innovation forum and ask if someone knows the answer there, although for specific questions I often have one or two people in mind who I know I can ask and get a good answer.

The caveat here, however, is that I am more likely to use digital resources for informational searches. For questions of a less well defined nature, I'm more likely to go to human resources directly. In other words, if I want to know good websites for learning javascript, I'll Google it. If I want to develop a plan for increasing our iPad usage in our District, I'm more likely to seek direct input from colleagues.

Lastly, I'm very interested in connecting with more educators. Follow me on Twitter (@MikeSmart) and I'll follow back!

Collaboration and Natural Instinct

Our topic for this week's blog post asks a fascinating question: Do you believe that humans have a basic instinct to interact and work as a group? Using the Tragedy of the Commons and the Prisoner's Dilemma as a base for individualistic activity, Rheingold (2008) makes a strong argument for the power of collaboration in his TED Talk on the same topic. He pulls in examples, such as Toyota's coaching of its suppliers and collaborative Bittorrent streams, to make the claim that collective action is growing in ways that increase the efficiency and productivity of individuals in groups.

To return to our question, however, as to whether humans have a basic instinct to interact and work as a group, I think that the answer is not a simple yes or no. I'd argue that humans have a basic instinct to socialize, and an extension of that socialization may be interaction as a group. However, I'd argue that humans also have a fundamental instinct to act in their own self interests, as evidenced by Rheingold's (2008) articulation of studies that show that humans will by and large desecrate common resources. To argue then, that interaction and cooperation are instinctive is clearly overstating the case. They are not.

Complicating this issue further is the role of groups in society. One could argue that mothers, for example, have an instinctive protective response for their children. Is this evidence of a basic instinct to interact, or is it an extension of the human need for survival?

Also, it's very easy to mash together words like cooperation, collaboration, and collective action into a stew where each term means the same thing. Using these terms interchangeably, however, muddies the issue. When we look at human interaction in more detail, we find that what is often termed as collaboration or cooperation, is in reality individuals each working alone to produce a collective product. Collective action is not the same thing as cooperation. Most examples that are touted as cooperation are in fact individual actions, cumulatively producing a product. For example, my direct supervisor loves to present a graphic on the construction of a modern aircraft as an example of cooperation and collaboration, where multiple entities work together to produce a plane. However, when you look at what actually happens, what you begin to realize is that it is in fact each company acting individually to produce a product that in turn gets assembled into a final product. Collective action, then, in most cases, is the sum of individual actions only thinly connected by any semblance of cooperation.

What is clear, however, is that there can be powerful benefits to times when groups truly cooperate. Anyone who has played on a sports team where the team must truly coordinate actions in order to succeed knows the true power and force of actual cooperation. Similarly, orchestras, where musical timing and a strong awareness of the group's actions are necessary to achieve success, must know the magic that lies in strong, interdependent group action.

What is remarkable now is the opportunity we have to cooperate and collaborate in ways that would have been unthinkable a mere ten years ago. Technology plays a big role in this enhanced collaboration. There are two ways this happens. First, technology now grants us connections to information and people that create an ease and opportunity for collaboration that greatly enhances its likelihood. If anyone remembers the early days of online video conferencing, for example, when good connections were extremely rare, and most conversations were like Maxwell Smart using the Cone of Silence, you can appreciate how much more communication and collaboration happens because video conferencing for the most part works now.

It's better now.

Second, technology also facilitates collaboration with its impressive array of tools for collaboration and sharing of content. The most pronounced example of this in our organization is the explosion in use of Google Docs that allows us to cooperatively create and share data to a degree unimaginable five years ago.

Research supports collaboration as an effective tool for learning in education, as evidenced by numerous studies. One such study (Vescio, Ross, & Adams, 2008) highlights the power behind professional learning communities (PLCs) in educational settings. This meta-analysis of several studies on PLCs showed that PLCs have a positive impact on student learning.

References:
Rheingold, H. (2008, February). Howard Rheingold on collaboration [Video file]. Retrieved from http://www.ted.com/talks/howard_rheingold_on_collaboration.html

Vescio, V., Ross, D., & Adams, A. (2008). A review of research on the impact of professional learning communities on teaching practice and student learning. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(1), pp. 80-91. Retrieved from: http://goo.gl/dvK2P

Photo Attribution:
Yuan2003, via flickr, Creative Commons. Thanks!

Cognitivism and Other Learning Theories

One of the current issues we're covering in our class on learning theories is whether one theory serves to explain learning more fully than the other theories. Is Constructivism, for example, better than Behaviorism in explaining how people learn? In particular, we're called to examine two blog posts this week that center on an educational debate among Bill Kerr, Karl Kapp, and Stephen Downes about Behaviorism and Cognitivism.

The first blog post bounces back and forth between attacks on Behaviorism and Cognitivism. These arguments use various examples such as nuclear reactor meltdowns and chess to substantiate arguments. At the end of the piece, Kerr (2007) offers the suggestion that various learning theories should be used as filters, not blinkers. Taking this argument a bit farther, Kapp (2007) in his blog post, argues that learning is a multi-faceted concept that doesn't fit into one learning theory.

I strongly agree with Kapp's (2007) conclusion that learning is a much more complex concept than it is usually given credit for in debates on learning theories. This would seem to me to be the heart of the issue. In the arguments on behaviorism versus cognitivism, for example, the learning situations given to support each author's argument would seem to be cherry-picked as examples of learning that are well explained by that particular theory. Instead, I'd suggest that we can think of learning theories as tools to be used dependent on the particular task at hand.

For example, in my Japanese classes, there are times when students need to build fundamental vocabulary skills. At this point, behaviorism works great to build and structure drill and reward type activities that help reinforce learning of memory-related concepts. As students learn more complex concepts, however, cognitivism plays a larger role. I must use schema, recycling, and strategies to develop more complex skills and knowledge. Lastly, as students move forward to the point where they are asked to create projects or solve less well defined problems, both constructivism and connectivism can play larger roles.

In short, Kapp's (2007) point is right on target that learning is too complex to fit into one theory. This would suggest that perhaps what is needed is not more discussion on learning theories. Instead, perhaps we should be focusing our efforts on categorizing the various forms of learning first.

References

Kerr, B. (2007, January 1). _isms as filter, not blinker [Web log post]. Retrieved from http://billkerr2.blogspot.com/2007/01/isms-as-filter-not-blinker.html

Kapp, K. (2007, January 2). Out and about: Discussion on educational schools of thought [Web log post]. Retrieved from http://www.kaplaneduneering.com/kappnotes/index.php/2007/01/out-and-about-discussion-on-educational/

Photo Credit:
CollegeDegrees360, via flickr Creative Commons license. Thanks!

Role of the Educator

Siemens (2008) argues that there have been three models proposed for the role of the educator in a networked world: master artist, network connector, and concierge. To these three he adds a fourth model, that of curator. Each of these models is subtlely different from the others, but all involve a role significantly different than the teacher as master performer, or the sage on the stage depiction of teachers so common ten years ago.

A master artist emphasizes a role that encourages students to emulate the performance of the teacher, yet still provides a model by which students can show their own work to the class. A network connector, on the other hand, gives an image of a point of access through which students can connect to other learning opportunities, but seems to minimize the potential of a teacher to actually teach content. In the concierge model, the teacher takes on more of a guidance element, with the implication that he or she will lead students to content and learning experiences tailored to their individual needs.

Siemens' (2008) own model offers some variations on the three previous models in that he argues that the teacher is more of a curator. In other words, in addition to a concierge function that guides students to high quality and meaningful content, the curator teacher can also teach and provide in-depth knowledge about a particular resource if a student needs it.

I like Siemens' curator model better than the concierge model, and the concierge model better than the network administrator model. In short, the curator role seems to imply a more active role for the teacher than that of a concierge, who merely can guide students to good content. And a concierge seems to imply a more active and engaged role than that of a network administrator, who merely presents content to students with little thought to quality and personalization. The master artist role, on the other hand, implies an active teacher who can share expertise on a subject and inspire students to learn. While I like Siemens' curator model better than the master artist model, I can see how in certain environments the master artist model could work.

Having said this, all four models fall short. I don't like the curator model because it implies that the learning is one-way. A curator can present information on a museum topic and capture the attention of museum attendees, but it strikes me as a one-direction experience. Learning today in a digital environment, however, should engage the students in activities higher up in Bloom's Taxonomy. A curator doesn't capture this feeling.

I'm not sure that I have a good alternative yet, but I do think that a model presented by Wagner (2012) offers a better picture. He argues that a teacher in today's digital world functions as a coach, providing instruction and activities to students as they strive to explore and learn in complex and engaging environments. I like this model better because the image of a coach strikes me as someone who provides opportunities and interesting activities to students, yet at the same time is there with them, side by side, helping them to succeed. It's engaging, fast-paced, and centered on the student's learning, not the teacher's presentational skills.

If you're interested in hearing more of Wagner, I've embedded a TED talk he recently gave on play, passion, and purpose.

   

References
Siemens, G. (2008, January 27). Learning and knowing in networks: Changing roles for educators and designers. Paper presented to ITFORUM. Retrieved from http://itforum.coe.uga.edu/Paper105/Siemens.pdf

Wagner, Tony. (2012, December 11). Opening Keynote Speech. Speech presented at the TIES 2012 Educational Conference, Minneapolis, MN.


Photo Attribution
axlape, via flickr Creative Commons License. 

Test of a Flisti Poll Embed

Just testing out a free online polling tool called Flisti. Very quick, and no sign-ups required....

Is it inappropriate to read/text on an iPhone while you're on the toilet?

Yes

No

or View Results

Create your own poll at Flisti.com