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!
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!
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.
