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.