Edtech 504: Reflection #4

While modern learning theories have evolved over the past 200 years, many constants remain. Behaviorists still employ many of the same beliefs of Pavlov, Watson, Skinner and Dewey. Learners are viewed as passive in the learning process and conditioned to acquire their knowledge. Cognitivists hold fast to the assumption that to gain new knowledge, learners must build upon prior knowledge. Following in the footsteps of the early leaders, Piaget and Bruner also believe that metacognition is critical to optimal learning. These cognitivists also were instrumental in building upon the work of Dewey as the theory of cognitive constructivism took shape. Constructivism principles are based upon the idea that for learning to be optimized, learners must be involved in active inquiry and authentic tasks. Vygotsky also employed constructivist principles in his work; however, he focused more on the social aspects of collaboration, language, and interaction with more experienced learners. This theory became known as social constructivism.

As schools have continued throughout the decades on the never-ending pendulum of educational reform, different theories have taken precedent at different times. The newest pedagogical approaches of the time employed the theories that were believed to elicit the greatest learning gains from students. Regardless of the approaches taken, learning remained somewhat consistent and classrooms varied little over time. I would assert that it is those times when the pendulum has swung back to the middle where the greatest learning gains are made. It is here that teachers were free to employ a variety of strategies from multiple theories to meet the needs of the student.

It is even more important in today’s society that we look towards emerging theories of education. The role of technology in our society has vastly changed how our students learn and what they need to learn. While it was deemed to be acceptable to maintain the status quo for the past two centuries in American classrooms, that is no longer the case. Students have a vast amount of information available to them 24 hours a day. The newer theories look beyond what is happening within the individual related to learning and instead look at how the individual can acquire knowledge through external means when it is needed. The connectivist design model draws upon this information availability and asserts that students should be taught how to access the information and synthesize the data to bring about meaning for themselves and to find answers to questions they may have in the future. Developing technologies also necessitate thought as to how learners interact with other individuals to build their knowledge base. Lave and Wenger (1991) coined the instructional practice of “Communities of Practice” to describe a group of individuals who come together out of common interests to learn together. While closely tied to social learning theories of the past, these communities of practice take on a new shape when the learning takes place online rather than in a face to face format. Another emerging theory worth noting is that of Transactional Distance Theory (Moore, 1980). Theories such as TDT are “invaluable in guiding the complex practice of a rational process such as teaching and learning at a distance” (Garrison, 2000).

When I examine the evolution of my teaching practice over the past twenty years, I see that I have employed to some extent each of the theories described. Based on my personal experience, I don’t think that there is one instructional method that fits all students, and, therefore, I have a difficult time believing that one theory can meet all needs. The human brain is a complex organ that responds to stimuli in a multitude of ways. I believe that all students benefit from some behaviorist instructional tools. I use these when I am teaching students their basic math facts or phonological skills. I employ constructivist approaches when utilizing project-based learning. I create Communities of Practice for Self-Organized Learning Environment (SOLE) experiences. I believe that as I continue my journey that I will gain more skill in employing principles aligned with TDT. Teachers must balance their pedagogical beliefs with state and federal mandates. Also, emerging technologies are necessitating changes in our educational settings.  It is important that educators look to the research as they make decisions on how to best respond to these changes.

 

References

Garrison, Randy. (2000). Theoretical Challenges for Distance Education in the 21st Century:  A Shift from Structural to Transactional Issues. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 1(1).

Jonassen, D., & Land, S. (2012) Theoretical Foundations of Learning Environments. New York, NY: Routledge.

Larson, M., & Lockee, B. (2014) Streamlined ID: A practical guide to instructional design. New York, NY: Routledge.

 

Edtech 504: Reflection #3

  Over the past three weeks, I have done more reading about learning theories than I have in my last 20 years of education. With all of the tremendous insights I have gleaned from these readings, one quote resonated with me more than any other. Perhaps it was the simple statement with the complex meaning or perhaps it was the way it spoke to me about my own teaching. Regardless of why it impacted me, the powerful words of Issroff & Scanlon (2002)  “Technology provides us with powerful tools to try out different designs, so that instead of theories of education, we may begin to develop a science of education.” The more I read on various theories, the more difficulty I have with a one size fits all approach. I think this is particularly true in a blended classroom such as the one I teach in. When I am using project-based learning with my students, I follow a constructivist theory. When I am delivering flipped video lessons, my instruction is much more guided by behaviorist principles. On student exit surveys conducted at the end of each year in my classroom, students resoundingly voice their opinion that they enjoy the variety of teaching methods that are employed in my classroom.

    Another very interesting correlation I made between the reading and what is happening in my own classroom is when I read about the Cognitive-Affective Model of Conceptual Change. Jonassen and Land (2012) state, “what gets noticed in the [CAMCC] environment results from an individual’s attitudes, goals, and prior beliefs.”  Within my classroom, we use the growth mindset work developed by Carol Dweck to foster the very aspects described in the CAMCC environment. I believe that this type of work is especially important in blended-learning or technology rich environments. For students to thrive in such environments, they must have strong metacognitive abilities as well as self-regulation. Jonassen and Land (2012) make the assertion, “Ideally, the self-regulated learner will make adaptive adjustments, based on continuous metacognitive monitoring and control related to the standards.” These skills do not happen naturally, and explicit teaching of these skills is especially important at the elementary level.

   As I was conducting my research on constructivism and PBL for my annotated bibliography, I came across some research that got me to look at how connectivism fits in with my classroom model. Larson and Lockee (2014) state, “Connectivist learning experiences are designed to support learners in building a network of relevant information sources to consult as needed for daily tasks and learning.” These experiences truly embody a blended learning classroom. Even within PBL, when technology is utilized heavily for research, the tenets of connectivism are certainly at play. Further support for a connectivist approach within a blended-learning classroom is stated by Siemens (2005),  “Learning theories are concerned with the actual process of learning, not with the value of what is being learned. In a networked world, the very manner of information that we acquire is worth exploring.” At the end of the day, I don’t believe I need to choose a learning theory to define my instructional practice. I do however believe that the research behind each of the theories can help me to tailor my instruction to best meet the needs of my students.

 

References:

Issroff, K., & Scanlon, E. (2002). Educational technology: The influence of theory. Journal of Interactive Media in Education, 6.

Jonassen, D., & Land, S. (2012) Theoretical Foundations of Learning Environments. New York, NY: Routledge.

Larson, M., & Lockee, B. (2014) Streamlined ID: A practical guide to instructional design. New York, NY: Routledge.

Siemens, G. (2005). Connectivism: A learning theory for the digital age. International Journal of instructional technology and Distance Learning, 2. Retrieved October 18, 2015.

 

Edtech 504 Reflection #2

Can a teacher in a public school today strictly follow one epistemological belief system and still meet the requirements of his/her job? Whether the teacher employs a constructivist, behaviorist, cognitivist, or one of the several other identified learning theories, if the instruction is not in line with the district expectations, it typically will not be supported. In the world of high stakes testing, epistemological beliefs can often times be at odds with preparation for the test.

While I would love to say that my classroom mirrors my true epistemic perspective, to do so would be a fabrication. I would most closely align my belief system with the constructivist theory; however, I do not spend the majority of my day teaching through this lens. The aspect of constructivism that appeals to me the most is stated by Larson and Lockee (2014) “A key idea emphasized by Constructivists is the importance of learning through authentic, real-world experiences and reflection about those experiences.” There are times throughout the week where the constructivist perspective is very evident in my classroom. I employ project based learning where students work in collaborative teams to create authentic projects in response to a “real world” problem or challenge, passion projects where students research and present on a topic of their choice, and data point choice times where students may choose from a menu of options to show acquisition of knowledge. It would be wonderful to spend my entire day teaching this way. The students are more engaged during these times than they are at any other point in the day and they are learning life skills that will take them much farther than learning a set of facts for a test each Friday.

The downside to employing a fully constructivist based classroom is the lack of objective data. Jonassen and Land (2012) state “SCLEs are grounded in a constructivist view of learning, where meaning is personally rather than universally defined.” This gives further evidence for student engagement, as the students are seeing the knowledge acquisition as personally meaningful and significant. It also gives evidence as to why district administrators who gauge instructional benefit by an end of year test, may be reluctant to accept less traditional epistemic beliefs and practices. Many of these administrators fall more in line with behaviorist theorists. Ertmer and Newby (1993) describe behaviorism outcomes as “Learning is accomplished when a proper response is demonstrated following the presentation of a specific environmental stimulus.”

We want students to do well on a test, so we reward them with grades, stickers, and praise.

I must say that I employ behaviorally based instructional strategies regularly within my classroom. My primary online reading program relies on pretests, drill and practice activities, and posttests. Students are regularly assessed through behavioral aligned methods on concepts such as vocabulary, basic math facts, and grammar. I struggle with how to use a more student centered approach to teaching skills that tend to me more rote in nature. I also worry about how my students will perform on the end of year tests if they are not regularly exposed to a more systematic instructional approach.

We have truly reached a point in our educational evolution where change is both imminent and necessary. Most of the jobs our students will hold have not yet been created. Business leaders have identified the need for students to be able to collaborate, communicate, problem solve, and creatively approach new situations. To create future workers who will be able to handle the demands of their jobs, schools need to be willing to embrace new epistemic perspectives and not only encourage teachers who utilize more constructivist approaches but also offer staff development opportunities to support those professionals. I believe that as the practice of employing instructional strategies that are constructivist in nature becomes more common in elementary schools across the country, I will feel more comfortable embracing the practices throughout the majority of my instruction.

 

References:

Ertmer, P.A., & Newby, T.J. (1993). Behaviorism, cognitivism, constructivism: Comparing critical features from an instructional design perspective. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 6(4), 50-72.

Jonassen, D., & Land, S. (2012) Theoretical Foundations of Learning Environments. New York, NY: Routledge.

Larson, M., & Lockee, B. (2014) Streamlined ID: A practical guide to instructional design. New York, NY: Routledge.

 

Edtech 504: Reflection #1

Edtech 504: Reflection #1

     Numerous definitions of educational technology can be found through a simple Google search. Even within our readings this week, we can see that experts cannot reach consensus on an all-encompassing description. Luppicini (2005) states “This dissonance surrounding technology gives rise to definitions that are not easily understood within the field or widely embraced outside of the field of Educational Technology.” If someone had asked me 5 years ago to define educational technology, my definition would have focussed on tools rather than instructional practice. Thankfully, I now know there is far much more involved.

Among the great quotes of Socrates, one stands out among all others to me as I reflect upon my current place in my career: “The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing.” Complacency certainly is much easier than the alternative. Four years ago when I decided to take on the challenge of designing a classroom for the 21st Century student, I thought I had the answers I would need to make an optimal environment for every student.

I clearly remember first hearing that my school district had decided to join a consortium of districts throughout Central Ohio to allow teachers to create innovative learning environments. If chosen, the organization which oversaw the consortium, TRECA, would fund the projects for two years. In return, they would “own” the ideas created by the teachers and be able to sell the designs to other districts.

As I sat down to write the initial proposal in the fall of 2011, I could clearly see the vision. I knew I could not do it alone, so I enlisted my teammate to join me in the journey. For the next nine months, we worked tirelessly to refine our design. On paper, we had created our dream multiage, blended-model classroom. Students would move throughout the two classrooms engaging in small group instruction in both reading and math with the teachers, project-based learning, individualized learning tracks through online resources, and have regular lessons on 21st Century Skills.  We were elated when our project was approved.

Vision and implementation are two vastly different things as we soon realized. While it was very exciting to be the first elementary classroom in our district to implement blended learning, it also put us on an island. There was no one else to bounce ideas off of, share resources with, or get assistance from when we ran into difficulties. We struggled with relationships among other staff members in our building who did not understand why we were doing things so differently. We struggled with relationships with parents who had chosen the environment for their child (we use a lottery system for classroom placement into our class), but did not understand that we were doing more than just using Chromebooks in the classroom and that they would need to shift their own notions of “what school should look like” if they could effectively support their child in this new environment.

I go back here to the thoughts of Socrates. When we began our work we were ignorant and yet we thought we knew much. We had read numerous Edutopia blogs about educational technology, attended several classes and conferences, and I even traveled to Arizona to visit the Carpe Diem school to see a unique blended-learning school in action. What we had not considered, however, was our greatest variable…the students.

Nothing prepares you for teaching like teaching. Once the students are in front of you is when you can see the true merit of your design. It is in these moments when you realize what you still need to learn, modify, and create to meet their needs. Roblyer and Doering (2013) state “Before integrating technology into their teaching, educators must know a great deal, for example, about why there are different views on appropriate teaching strategies, how societal factors and learning theories have shaped these views, and how each strategy can address different needs. This quote not only exemplifies my journey throughout the past four years but also points in the direction I want to head.

Throughout my coursework at Boise State over the past year, I realized another critical component of instructional design was missing from my initial work in creating my classroom: Research. Januszewski and Molenda (2008) support this need when they state “The theoretical understanding of, as well as the practice of, educational technology, requires continual knowledge construction and refinement through research and reflective practice, which are encompassed in the term study.

My goal for this class is to broaden my understanding of the theories associated with educational technology and how those theories have evolved over time. I believe that this increased knowledge base will not only drive me to make more informed decisions about my own practice but will also support my opinions as I’m suggesting educational technology-related advancements within our district. As I am currently being utilized more and more throughout my district for teaching courses and peer coaching other teachers, having research to back up my suggestions is critical to my credibility.

References:

Januszewski, A., & Molenda, M. (2008) Educational technology: a definition with commentary. New York, NY: Erlbaum.

Luppicini, R. (2005). A Systems Definition of Educational Technology in Society.    Educational Technology & Society, 8 (3). 103-109.

Roblyer, M., & Doering, A. (2013). Integrating Educational Technology into Teaching: Pearson New International Edition (6th ed., international ed.). Harlow: Pearson.

EDTECH 521 Reflections

Reflection Link 

PBL Post Project Reflection

In order to effectively evaluate and debrief the PBL experience, a two-tiered approach will be taken. First, throughout the project I will be taking notes on the timeline. Noting things such as lesson changes, time discrepancies, if frontloading any information would be helpful, etc. will guide me as I adjust for future use of the design. During this step I will also consult with other teachers if particular lessons did not go well and solicit ideas for new instructional tools to use in their place. The second part of the debriefing will be done by the students. Since they all will have completed written reflections on various aspects of the project, we will have the opportunity to discuss what they wrote. We will look for commonalities and departures from responses and find common ground about suggestions to move the project or future projects into a more student-friendly direction.

In terms of designing future PBL units, one of the biggest lessons I learned throughout the course was the importance of feedback. So often as elementary teachers, we work in isolation from our colleagues. This is largely due to the fact that we do not have common planning times with each other and everyone is busy before and after school with their own planning. That being said, I was able to improve my project a great deal from the feedback I received throughout its design and I believe that if we shared our skill sets with one another we would find that in the end we would save ourselves a great deal of time and have higher quality units.

Taking on the Role of Facilitator

Project based learning involves students becoming comfortable with a new way of learning. For some this changing role is uncomfortable. Those who are comfortable in the traditional classroom where right and wrong answers are clearly defined, often times become anxious when confronted with an environment where multiple solutions are possible. These students must make a paradigm shift in the way they approach problems. So too does the role of the teacher change in the constructivist environment where PBL thrives. Teachers no longer take the responsibility for delivering all of the knowledge to the students and assessing the students to see if they remember what was taught. Rather, they become facilitators who guide students to find their own answers, question their findings, reflect, make revisions, and find other solutions.

At first glance, one might think that PBL would be easier for a teacher and require less skill than traditional teaching. This is utterly false and I would assert that acting as a competent facilitator is something that can only be done after years of classroom experience. The art of facilitation takes  strong content knowledge, clear focus on outcomes, and an understanding of the developmental appropriateness of children at the grade level where the instruction is to take place. A facilitator not only has to design exemplary units that are rich, authentic, and standards based, but also must maintain a collaborative, focused, environment.

If students are explicitly instructed on the soft skills associated with PBL, the process will go much more smoothly and optimal learning will occur. These skills include collaboration, communication, creativity, and teamwork. Students need to be able to work with others in the workplace and developing these skills while they are still in school prepares them for their future jobs.

Designing Integrated Curriculum

One of the true benefits of using PBL in the classroom is the ease with which you can integrate curriculum. This is something that as an elementary teacher is critical if PBL is going to be used. There simply are not enough hours in the day to teach every subject area in isolation and utilize PBL; however, when you can take advantage of interdisciplinary opportunities, time becomes less of an obstacle. A huge benefit to students in integrating the curriculum is the idea of transfer. So often students see skills taught in isolation and only within one subject area. When multiple disciplines are brought together, students can see real life applicability for each skill and how all the subject areas work together and are interdependent upon each other.

Assessments in PBL

As I have been working on creating my assessments for my PBL project, I have needed to continually go back to the standards I am assessing and make sure that the assessments are aligned. My first assessment that I have envisioned is product based and one that incorporates standards from many subjects. When creating interdisciplinary assessments, the rubric needs to be clearly aligned in order for students to know what they are being assessed on and how those criteria will transfer to grades for a specific subject area. The fact that my first assessment, an ad campaign, is a group project also brings up other concerns around individual accountability. Using the collaboration and presentation rubrics on the BIE website will greatly help with this. The second summative assessment I have included in the project is a written reflection paper. The rubric is very specific and aligns itself with the directions for the assessment. The writing assessment itself allows for a great deal of individualism and choice. While grammar and conventions are being assessed in the writing, a much larger percentage of the grade is around the ideas and author’s voice within the writing. Used in conjunction with each other, the two assessments cover all of the standards taught throughout the project.

Is it still PBL without an authentic audience?

As I continue to work through my PBL project, I reflect on this question and how I can help the students to keep audience in the forethought of their design. The more realistic a teacher can make a PBL project, the more kids will be able to relate to it. Many topics lend themselves more naturally to a “real world” situation. Even when experts cannot be brought in as audience members, students can be taught how to keep those experts in mind as they are creating their projects. Students need to have their work publicly displayed or shared with an audience beyond the classroom whenever possible. This not only lends a sense of credibility to their work, but also gives them a greater sense of purpose. Technology can be an invaluable tool for connecting the students to a more authentic audience. Whether through a YouTube video, a Skype session, or a collaborative Google doc students can easily connect with others around the world.

Is PBL still PBL without an authentic audience?…Yes. Is it the best learning environment without this key component?…Probably not!