Reflection on my personal theory of learning

On rereading my personal theory of learning (which I wrote seven weeks ago and posted below, today) I see that during this course, “Bridging Learning Theory, Instruction and Technology,” I have learned that I lecture too much, and I use too many teacher-centered approaches in my instructional methods. My (limited) use of technology is no different. My use of PowerPoint is exclusively as an instructional tool, as opposed to a learning tool, as described by Dr, Orey (Laureate Education, Inc., 2008b). I also realize, as a result of this course, that almost all of the Web 2.0 tools I need for making my instruction more student-centered have free-for-use versions which are accessible by any student who has internet access. Thus, I can no longer make the excuse that I don’t use technology because if its “limited availability.”

Since social networking is one of the goals of NETS·S, and since students seem to gravitate toward online networking tools, I will try to make more use of VoiceThread and other tools such as wikis and blogs, which will facilitate collaboration between my students and me outside of the classroom (ISTE_NETS·S, 2007). Use of social networking sites can provide students with opportunities to experience some of Dr. Pickering’s nine instructional clusters, depending on how I design my lessons (Laureate Education, Inc., 2008a). Combining social networking tools with virtual field trips and online graphic organizers, these clusters may include similarities and differences, summarizing and notes, creating non-linguistic representations, using cooperative learning, and using advanced organizers. All of these are student-centered and thus meet Dr. Orey’s plea for using technology as a learning tool.

Two of my long-term goals for integration of technology as a learning tool into my instructional practices are to become an advocate for technology in my school with a view to obtaining more hardware in my classroom, and to become more knowledgeable in the use of Web 2.0 learning tools. Accomplishing my first goal will be the most difficult of the two. My principal and coworkers will be the people I try to convince of the advantages of the use of technology in instruction. There are already many teachers at my school who use technology better than me and would be happy to work with me in applying pressure to the administration to give teachers and students more access to technology. The resistance, of course, will be in the form of “no money” and “no interest.” Accomplishment of my second goal is simpler, and completely within my power. I must become proficient in the use of these tools so that I can demonstrate their versatility, validity, and simplicity to my coworkers. And meeting this goal will make meeting my first goal less difficult.

References.

ISTE_NETS·S. (2007). The International Society for Technology in Education - National Educational Technology Standards for Students. Retrieved January 12, 2009, from http://www.iste.org/Content/NavigationMenu/NETS/ForStudents/2007Standard

Laureate Education, Inc. (Producer). (2008a). Program eleven. Instructional Strategies, Part One [Motion picture]. Bridging learning theory, instruction and technology. Baltimore: Author.

Laureate Education, Inc. (Producer). (2008b). Program thirteen. Technology: Instructional Tool vs. Learning Tool [Motion picture]. Bridging learning theory, instruction and technology. Baltimore: Author.

My personal theory of learning

I am a believer in (most of) the nine learning styles enumerated by Howard Gardner (Lever-Duffy, 2008). Teaching to the multiple intelligences (Orey, 2001) forces me to borrow from all of the four main learning theories. I utilize elements of social learning theory by having students work in collaborative groups to practice their interpersonal and linguistic skills. My labs borrow from constructionist learning theory, wherein students design and conduct labs on their own. The labs also serve to cultivate student’s kinesthetic, spatial, logical and naturalistic intelligences. As a physics teacher my lectures bring up existential questions such as the beginning and the end of the universe, and man’s place in it.

The level of hardware and software now (as compared to the late 70s which had a predominance of green text and cheesy animations) allows for technology to enhance learning through multimedia – touching on many of the learning styles rather than just the linguistic, or the logical. Sound, movies, graphics, and controls that students can use to interact with the computer are all broadening the extent to which educational technology can enhance student learning. Web 2.0 capabilities allow for collaborative interaction with a virtually unlimited pool of information and cohorts with an ease that is only impressive to someone who has experienced digital technology from its beginnings. Students interact naturally and seamlessly within the web. Orey’s claim that learners learn better when they are active in the process, and that they learn best when they are immersed in the process demonstrates, I think, that technology has a lot to offer.

The level of technology use that I incorporate into my teaching strategies is almost nil when I consider what is out there. The reason for this inadequate use is mostly because of its limited availability to me in my classroom environment-but admittedly it is also because of my naïveté in its use. I use PowerPoints for all of my notes so that I can walk around the classroom as I lecture and have animations and graphics and sound effects to hold student’s attention. I use email so that students who are absent (or are poor note-takers) can email me for the notes. I use a wiki with a very limited subset of my students, mostly as a learning experience for me (and apparently for them). But other than these basic uses, technology and the Web 2.0 capabilities for collaboration are grossly underused by myself, and most of my colleagues. This is, of course, why I am enrolled in the technology track in this university.

References

Lever-Duffy, J. & McDonald, J. (2008). Theoretical Foundations (Laureate Education, Inc., custom ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education, Inc.

Orey, M.(Ed.). (2001). Emerging perspectives on learning, teaching, and technology. Retrieved from http://projects.coe.uga.edu/epltt/index.php?title=Main_Page.

My VoiceThread Link

Press the title to visit a link called "Fun At The (Physics) Movies" to see some real action footage (that only a physics teacher could love).

Technology and social learning

The maximum level of social interaction is possible, in my opinion, only in the classroom, where peers can work together in collaborative groups and interact in real time and face-to-face with one another. The ideal use of technology in the context of social learning and constructivist theory, in my opinion, would be for research by a real, live collaborative classroom group, for assistance in creating an artifact (by the collaborative group), or for posting the artifact on the Web (by the collaborative group). The technological functions could be of the social learning type (FaceBook, VoiceThread, or podcast), the constructivist type (Webspiration, or a virtual field trip), or the collaborative type (a wiki or even a blog). All of these technological tools would be in addition to the real-time collaboration that would happen in the classroom, rather than a substitute for that face-to-face collaboration that I think is important for a student’s social development.

Generating and Testing Hypotheses

The reading on “Generating and Testing Hypotheses” relates to constuctivism in that the student who is going to generate a hypothesis must understand certain facts before he can even hypothesize, and therefore must search out these facts in an active manner. After attempting to organize and understand these facts, he must then construct his hypothesis, and formulate a way to test it. All of this is very active and student-centered learning. And an artifact, in the form of an experiment, or a survey, or a report, can be presented to a class, or placed on display, or published on a blog.

At a deeper level, the generation of a hypothesis draws from a student’s current schema, or overall view of the world, whereas the testing of the hypothesis may very well cause a student to feel what Orey referred to as disequilibration (a term coined, along with the following few, by Seymore Popper) – a feeling of discomfort because of a new fact that doesn’t fit into the student’s world view. This discomfort can be relieved either by assimilation of the new fact into the student’s current schema, or by a process called accommodation, where the student actually adjusts his world view to accommodate the new fact. All of these processes are just what is meant by constructivism, which in the words of Orey is “a theory of knowledge stating that each individual actively constructs his own meaning [of the world].”

My field of physics (and I suppose any field of study for that matter) actually grows by the generation and testing of hypotheses. And the history of physics is rife with examples the battles between assimilation and accommodation among the scientists of all eras, with the discovery of new facts that did not fit into the neat schemas of the times.

Cognitive learning theory: Concept-mapping and digital media

Having seen Dr. Orey’s lecture, and listened to his comments on the “dual coding hypothesis” (which basically hypothesizes that when you see an image of something, not only does your brain store that image but it also formulates a language-oriented label for that image in another portion of your brain, thus creating more than one network path to that memory) I see how important it is to include graphics in my PowerPoints. Since the internet is a virtually infinite source of graphic images, animations, photographs, virtual tours, sounds, and videos of just about any subject, it is easy to incorporate these into my lectures, which might otherwise be even more boring.

Concept-mapping, which I have never used before, appears to be a good way for students to take a complicated group of interrelated facts and form them into a personally coherent, structured system that may be easier for them to retrieve from memory than any system I might present to them. The map they produce is a way for them to graphically build connections (which fits into the network model of cognitive learning theory). Their map may contain more information than their short-term memory is capable of assimilating, thus assisting them in building their networks and connections at a higher level than without this technological tool.

Behaviorism: Alive and kicking on the web

I enjoyed testing out each of the behaviorism-based online drilling programs referenced in this week’s resources. All of these technological tools make use of practice and reinforcement. They represent the same “programmed instruction” developed by B. F. Skinner and the behaviorists in the 60s, but use contemporary technology. In total, they illustrate the wide range of capabilities offered by the web for drill and practice. WebMATH and English Grammar 101 were both very basic, but, I think, utilitarian. Their score-keeping capabilities made for quick feedback. The DC Physics site was more basic, and didn’t evaluate your responses as did the math and the grammar programs, though it supplied you with the correct answers. My favorite site, because of the graphics and the sound, was the Social Studies Tutor. It was also the most difficult to use because of the more advanced topics it tried to teach. The map skills were basic and the tutorials for these were clear. But the section on “Recognizing Bias,” for example, gave hints that were not too helpful, simply because of the complexity of the skill. The section on “Analyzing Images” was also subject to various interpretations. For practice and drill, then, I think simple programs are best. I was intrigued by Pitler’s use of the spreadsheet to show students how their achievement is directly related to their effort. Not only does it illustrate to students the importance of effort, but it also illustrates the use of the spreadsheet (if you don’t give students a template, and you have each kid make his own sheet). This is a very cheap, creative, and productive way to make an old program do a new thing.

Reflections on coursework

Before taking the course “Understanding the Impact of Technology on Education, Work, and Society” I had no ideas what blogs, wikis and podcasts were and how these tools were embedded in the Web 2.0 information and communications technology interface. Now, having been forced to experience each of these tools (not without some trepidation) I can see how each can be integrated into the classroom.

From my perspective, I can enhance student learning by increasing their opportunities for creative contribution (in ICT terminology: publishing and collaborating), and I can extend my classroom rather painlessly to after-school hours, when many of my students are already involved in doing Web 2.0 stuff why not in the context of my classroom curriculum. For example, a blog facilitating out-of-class debate on global warming, or a wiki facilitating group development of projects on alternative energy sources shifts learning from my teacher-directed classroom to student-directed home time. From the students’ perspectives, collaboration and experience in the Web 2.0 medium will help prepare them for their future occupations.

Two long-term goals I have in mind for transforming my classroom environment are to advocate for the district removal of internet blocks on the socializing sites that are currently off limits to my students from within the building, and to advocate for more classroom computers, and general access to computers and the internet during school hours. Becoming a vocal advocate for these two goals may (unfortunately) be required of me.

21st Century teaching

I was surprised that my state, Wisconsin, was one of only ten which are partners with the website "Partnership for 21st Century Learning." I was further surprised that I could follow a link to the Wisconsin DPI overview of how we are to participate in 21st century teaching.

Another link that I was impressed with was the Resources link. Clicking on the curriculum button I could find resources for direct use in the classroom.

Sorry this posting is a week late - I was indisposed for about nine days for reasons beyond my control.

Enhanced global warming discussion

I think I would like to use a blog for my junior and senior IB physics students to discuss controversial topics such as “Enhanced Global Warming.” They are very vociferous on this topic, and we never have quite enough time in the classroom to discuss it as much as the kids would like to. The blog format would allow the discussion to continue for as long as students wanted it to, and it would perhaps fill out my lesson by making my students think more critically about the link between public policies and science - bringing to light the many sides of the global warming issue. I think the blog format might be excellent for many reasons. The first is that students might be more inclined to think about their responses and comments since they would become part of a “public” document. The second is that students might be inclined to do some research on their own, regarding seemingly obvious, or seemingly outrageous entries by their peers before posting. I might be able to enhance this aspect by assigning half the class to argue one side of the issue, and half the class to argue the other side. Thirdly, students who don’t normally like to participate verbally might open up more at home via the keyboard. And if we opened up the blog to an audience wider than my classes (say the school), we might liven up the discussion even more. The best scenario would incorporate the whole web into the discussion. There is always the potential of a scientist or politician entering the fray.