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!
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.
Video Credits
I would like to thank the following people and organizations for their contributions to this video.
Photo Credits
OZinOH
James Sarmiento
Shanghai Daddy
Estatevaults
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
Tywkiwdbi
Gulf Coast Regional Blood Center
iClipArt
Video Clips
Edutopia: Project-Based Learning Clips
Interviews, Video Participants
Jon Voss
Jon Fila
Paul Bennett
Max Smart
References
Bird, L. (2007). The 3 "C" design model for networked collaborative e-learning: A tool for novice designers. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 44(2), 153-167. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.
Robins, D. & Holmes, J. (2008). Aesthetics and credibility in website design. Information Processing and Management, 44, p. 386-399.
Scribner, D. E., (2007). High school students’ perceptions: Supporting motivation to engage and persist in learning (Doctoral Dissertation). Capella University, Minneapolis, Minnesota.
Tractinsky, N., Katz, A., & Ikar, D. (2000) What is beautiful is usable. Interacting with Computers, 13(2), 127-145.
University of Indianapolis. (2009). Summary of project-based learning. Center of Excellence in Leadership of Learning. Retrieved from: http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CBcQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fcell.uindy.edu%2Fdocs%2FPBL%2520research%2520summary.pdf&rct=j&q=University%20of%20Indianapolis.%20(2009).%20Summary%20of%20project-based%20learning.&ei=qbhcTdC9IsqCtgf5lMXaCg&usg=AFQjCNHXNElLRhYpxdq_Z2WY3ONXFhy_rw&sig2=16v-VO_mFzL7WjDDUoxz1A&cad=rja
Watson, J., Murin, A., Vashaw, L., Gemin, B., & Rapp, C. (2010). Keeping pace with K-12 online learning: An annual review of state-level policy and practice. Vienna, VA: North American Council for Online Learning. Retrieved from http://www.kpk12.com/wp-content/uploads/KeepingPaceK12_2010.pdf
Zhang, P. (2009). Theorizing the relationship between affect and aesthetics in the ICT design and use context. Proceedings of the 2009 International Conference on Information Resources Management, (pp 1-15). Dubai, United Arab Emirates.
Annotations
Bird, L. (2007). The 3 "C" design model for networked collaborative e-learning: A tool for novice designers. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 44(2), 153-167. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.
Bird builds a theoretical argument based on research for a new approach to online learning course design. In his model, he argues for a three pronged approach that focuses on content, which is the fundamental knowledge in the course, construction, which is new knowledge built through engaging in the course, and consolidation, which describes the process of fusing together knowledge after a meaningful learning experience.
Bird’s argument is certainly logical, and I found it insightful to look at learning through this lens. However, I’m not sure that I can agree fully with the definitions that he argues for. Intuitively, it seems like the boundaries are somewhat ill defined, and that a sharper model or a refined model is needed to strengthen his argument.
Hannum and McCombs use a summary of current research in distance learning and student motivation to build and argument for designing online courses that are based on 14 learner-centered principles such as strategic thinking and construction of knowledge. They conclude that distance learning and course design must take into considerations the needs, motivations, and goals of learners in order to be successful in today’s cultural climate.
I thought this article was a precise and logical blueprint for engaging students by involving students’ goals and needs in the learning process. They lay a strong research foundation for their argument and stayed within the implications of the research nicely. My only critique of the article would be that several of the learner-centered principles could benefit from sharper definitions and clarifications, but this is perhaps to be expected given the limitations of the length of the article.
Robins, D. & Holmes, J. (2008). Aesthetics and credibility in website design. Information Processing and Management, 44, p. 386-399.
Robins and Holmes conducted a study in which 20 subjects evaluate the credibility of websites based on their aesthetic appeal. The study was excellently presented in the article, and it was a particular pleasure to read the precise writing, which made understanding both the study and its findings a straightforward process. The study concluded that aesthetics have a direct and strong impact on perceived credibility of a particular organization. Even in cases where credibility scored low, aesthetics raised the credibility of a site. This would imply that focusing on aesthetics is vital for a broad range of Internet applications.
I found this study to be particularly well developed, presented, and executed. The authors thought of everything, and were particularly clear in presenting their results.
Scribner, D. E., (2007). High school students’ perceptions: Supporting motivation to engage and persist in learning (Doctoral Dissertation). Capella University, Minneapolis, Minnesota.
Scribner’s doctoral thesis is an extensive, well-detailed, and comprehensive examination of high school students’ perceptions towards online learning. She interviewed 200 students from Virtual High School and builds a strong collection of data for examination. She then proceeds to draw a wide range of compelling conclusions from the research. Of particular note are her findings that course design, a variety of activities, and a welcoming, student-centered focus are key elements to eliciting student engagement in a course. Overall, I was very impressed with both the extent and quality of her work, and was particularly pleased that it connected directly to my video topic.
Tractinsky, N., Katz, A., & Ikar, D. (2000) What is beautiful is usable. Interacting with Computers, 13(2), 127-145.
The authors conducted an experiment where they measured the relationship between aesthetics and usability. In the study, participants used different designs of an Automated Teller Machine interface to conduct simple tasks while the researchers measured various activities and perceptions. They found that aesthetics play a large role in how a user interacts with an interface.
While I found the methodology and results of the study well expressed, I do question the narrowness of the study. I would challenge the authors to expand the scope of future studies. Having said this, the study does add to the growing body of knowledge pointing to the critical nature of interface design and human interaction.
Watson, J., Murin, A., Vashaw, L., Gemin, B., & Rapp, C. (2010). Keeping pace with K-12 online learning: An annual review of state-level policy and practice. Vienna, VA: North American Council for Online Learning. Retrieved from http://www.kpk12.com/wp-content/uploads/KeepingPaceK12_2010.pdf
Keeping Pace 2010 is this year’s version of the iNacol-sponsored examination of the current state of online learning in the United States. The massive report examines data collected from hundreds of sources and compiles them into an extensive report chronicling trends and patterns in online learning.
From and information standpoint, Keeping Pace 2010 is a helpful bounty of information, but occasionally I question the conclusions the study draws. For example, it’s often implied that Minnesota is behind other states because it doesn’t have a state online learning program, but that to a large degree is intentional. The state has a thriving online system, just not a centralized one.
To see the image at full size, click on it or go to this public Google doc.
Reflection
In twenty-four years of teaching, I've made lots of mistakes, but I think that one thing that I got right was to always place an strong emphasis on active and dynamic learning experiences in my classes. At first, however, I think I made the mistake of thinking that it was important that I as a teacher be active and dynamic in how I taught. Over the years, I realized that the better question to ask is "How dynamic and active are my students?" With that in mind, I've worked hard to keep my classes as far towards the dynamic end of things as possible. I'm very much an advocate, for example, of Clay Shirky's position that social media has the potential to alter the world. With that said, I think we tend to teach as we were taught, and it's constantly been a struggle for me to keep pushing the edge of the envelope in terms of engaging content and dynamic learning experiences.
I especially struggled when I created my first online course. It was as if I'd forgotten everything I learned from teaching traditional classes, and Moller's (2008) point that we move toward the future with our eye on the past was never more apparent. The course was filled with multiple-choice quizzes and PDF files. In my defense, the technology was not there yet even to deliver reliable video content. The dynamic tools currently available to online teachers simply weren't available then. But what was equally apparent as I look back on that course was that I didn't have a dynamic approach to the class either. As I gained more experience, I think I've been able to build more dynamic learning experiences into the courses that I work on.
Through taking this course, I've become exposed to even more tools for allowing students to create dynamic content, and I'm excited to try to implement them in my classes. I've greatly appreciated the opportunity to incorporate these tools into my learning experiences.
I'd also like to offer up a couple of observations on making the dynamic-static mind map...
First, it struck me that many of the tools could easily go into more than one place. Google Docs, for example, could easily only be used as a static technology for storage and display of non-editable documents. At the same time, you could employ Google Docs as a real-time collaborative tool. In the same way, Google Docs could easily be a tool for content-sharing rather than just collaboration.
Second, the hardest section for me to fill out was the static collaborative tools section. It almost seems as if those places are contradictions in terms. Collaboration, by its nature, implies interaction and dynamic activity. In the end, however, I realized that many of the places where we store our creative works are perhaps the best examples of places where collaboration occurs, but in very much a one-way direction.
References
Moller, L. (2008). Static and dynamic technological tools. [Unpublished Paper]. Retrieved from: http://sylvan.live.ecollege.com/ec/courses/14936/CRS-WUEDUC8812-3730064/8842_M5_Paper.pdf
I've embedded an interactive graphic organizer made with Prezi for this blog assignment. If you're not familiar with Prezi, there are just a couple of things to be aware of to view the organizer easily. Both the Reflection section and the Why/Benefits section of the assignment are inside the Prezi.
Recommended Viewing Instructions
Click on the arrow in the bottom middle of the Prezi to activate the organizer.
After you click on the main arrow, you'll see some more menu options appear. Click on the light gray "More" in the bottom right of the Prezi window, then select "Full Screen."
Click on the Arrow in the bottom middle of the screen to move through the graphic organizer.
To see it all, keep clicking until you see "The End."
Optional: (While in full screen mode, click on the "target circle" in the lower right (it's just to the left of "More") to zoom out and see the whole organizer at a glance.)
