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