Engagement Activity 1: Learning Styles
1. What is your learning style? What sorts of learning experiences would suit you best with your learning style? Comment on the accuracy of the test.
***Addition 10/4/13
Now that I have finished the first five weeks of material in this course and in Pedagogical Content Knowledge and I know where I am going for my first teaching prac I feel that I can update this post to reflect on how my learning styles will influence my teaching praxis in the teaching context that I will be working within.
According to Marzano and Pickering (1997), "most teachers are aware that when their attitudes towards students are positive, student performance is enhanced" (p.17). For this reason, I will aim to to be an enthusiastic and positive teacher with the intention of presenting the curriculum and related learning activities as tasks that are valuable and interesting. The goal being to influence my students to achieve positive attitudes and perceptions to their own work which will in turn extend to successful academic outcomes.
According to Felder and Solomon’s (n.d.) Index of Learning Styles, I am mostly a visual learner; a sequential learner (rather global); and a sensing learner (as opposed to intuitive) in that I need to relate new information to what I already know. I have balance between active/reflective learning, slightly favouring active, as I learn best when I try to work on something briefly, then reflect on it before going back the task and completing it. In terms of Howard Gardner's Multiple Intelligences Theory, I have a very strong visual/spatial and logical intelligences. I am strong in the interpersonal, intrapersonal, linguistic and naturalistic intelligences which means that I am self-aware, can relate to other people, enjoy use of words and like the natural world. My kinesthetic score was just above average however, I feel as though I am becoming increasingly kinesthetic as interactive technology becomes more prominent in my everyday life, use of iPad and iPhone for example. My music intelligence score was very low and reflects that I am not an aural learner and that to me music is something that just plays in the background.
My teaching context is teaching Technology (IT) and Mathematics to grade 8 and 9 students at an all girls school. I have not had much experience with them at the time of writing but as learners they appear to be highly active learners who have strong kinesthetic dominance. This may be due to the fact that they are millennium children who have grown up with the interactive technologies available in 21st Century classrooms. In addition, they have been taught during their primary school years by learner-centred pedagogies. There are few similarities between these learners and my own experiences as a school student and my learning preferences. The main similarity is a preference for visual learning. My plan when I begin teaching to these students is to begin the lessons by demonstrating to them the overall relevance of the the topic. Providing a big picture scenario will appeal to the global learners. I will also have written instructions and guidance strategies for the sequential learners - this will be straightforward as that is natural to me.
For those students who are intuitive learners I will provide need big picture scenarios of problems and scaffold their learning to assist them to work out how to solve them. As a sensing learner I will easily be able to provide the greater detail necessary for the sensing learners. I will also work towards providing collaborative, authentic and problem-based tasks and support the students with scaffolded instructions to help them achieve improved learning outcomes. As kinesthetic learning is a weakness for me I will try wherever possible to employ a ‘learning by doing’ approach for my students. As I became more familiar with my students’ learning preferences I will adapt my teaching style to cater for their learning styles and scaffold the learning so that students can take ownership of their work and learn by doing. I feel that by adapting my teaching strategies to cater for my students’learning styles I be able to implement more engaging and effective learning experiences that will lead to a positive learning environment.
Reference:
Marzano, R.J., & Pickering, D.J. (1997). Dimensions of Learning: Teacher’s Manual. Denver, CO: McREL.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
***Addition 2/4/13
Temperament Theory
Using the Myers-Briggs Personality type tests available on http://keirsy.com/I identified my personality type as being a Guardian. Which are described as Concrete Cooperators who speak mostly of their duties and responsibilities, of what they can keep an eye on and take good care of, and they're careful to obey the laws, follow the rules, and respect the rights of others.
http://www.keirsey.com/4temps/overview_temperaments.asp
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
***Addition 10/4/13
Now that I have finished the first five weeks of material in this course and in Pedagogical Content Knowledge and I know where I am going for my first teaching prac I feel that I can update this post to reflect on how my learning styles will influence my teaching praxis in the teaching context that I will be working within.
According to Marzano and Pickering (1997), "most teachers are aware that when their attitudes towards students are positive, student performance is enhanced" (p.17). For this reason, I will aim to to be an enthusiastic and positive teacher with the intention of presenting the curriculum and related learning activities as tasks that are valuable and interesting. The goal being to influence my students to achieve positive attitudes and perceptions to their own work which will in turn extend to successful academic outcomes.
According to Felder and Solomon’s (n.d.) Index of Learning Styles, I am mostly a visual learner; a sequential learner (rather global); and a sensing learner (as opposed to intuitive) in that I need to relate new information to what I already know. I have balance between active/reflective learning, slightly favouring active, as I learn best when I try to work on something briefly, then reflect on it before going back the task and completing it. In terms of Howard Gardner's Multiple Intelligences Theory, I have a very strong visual/spatial and logical intelligences. I am strong in the interpersonal, intrapersonal, linguistic and naturalistic intelligences which means that I am self-aware, can relate to other people, enjoy use of words and like the natural world. My kinesthetic score was just above average however, I feel as though I am becoming increasingly kinesthetic as interactive technology becomes more prominent in my everyday life, use of iPad and iPhone for example. My music intelligence score was very low and reflects that I am not an aural learner and that to me music is something that just plays in the background.
My teaching context is teaching Technology (IT) and Mathematics to grade 8 and 9 students at an all girls school. I have not had much experience with them at the time of writing but as learners they appear to be highly active learners who have strong kinesthetic dominance. This may be due to the fact that they are millennium children who have grown up with the interactive technologies available in 21st Century classrooms. In addition, they have been taught during their primary school years by learner-centred pedagogies. There are few similarities between these learners and my own experiences as a school student and my learning preferences. The main similarity is a preference for visual learning. My plan when I begin teaching to these students is to begin the lessons by demonstrating to them the overall relevance of the the topic. Providing a big picture scenario will appeal to the global learners. I will also have written instructions and guidance strategies for the sequential learners - this will be straightforward as that is natural to me.
For those students who are intuitive learners I will provide need big picture scenarios of problems and scaffold their learning to assist them to work out how to solve them. As a sensing learner I will easily be able to provide the greater detail necessary for the sensing learners. I will also work towards providing collaborative, authentic and problem-based tasks and support the students with scaffolded instructions to help them achieve improved learning outcomes. As kinesthetic learning is a weakness for me I will try wherever possible to employ a ‘learning by doing’ approach for my students. As I became more familiar with my students’ learning preferences I will adapt my teaching style to cater for their learning styles and scaffold the learning so that students can take ownership of their work and learn by doing. I feel that by adapting my teaching strategies to cater for my students’learning styles I be able to implement more engaging and effective learning experiences that will lead to a positive learning environment.
Reference:
Marzano, R.J., & Pickering, D.J. (1997). Dimensions of Learning: Teacher’s Manual. Denver, CO: McREL.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
***Addition 2/4/13
Temperament Theory
Using the Myers-Briggs Personality type tests available on http://keirsy.com/I identified my personality type as being a Guardian. Which are described as Concrete Cooperators who speak mostly of their duties and responsibilities, of what they can keep an eye on and take good care of, and they're careful to obey the laws, follow the rules, and respect the rights of others.
http://www.keirsey.com/4temps/overview_temperaments.asp
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Learning Styles Results |
Results for: Jo Luck |
Figure 1: My results from the Learning Styles questionnaire by Felder and Soloman.
The following notes and reflection rely heavily on the webpage entitled Learning Styles and Strategies by Richard M. Felder & Barbara A. Soloman.
ACTIVE AND REFLECTIVE LEARNER
My score was 1 which indicates that I am fairly well balanced on the two dimensions of that scale. This is a great result because on each scale a balance is highly desirable. Felder and Soloman argue that "if you always act before reflecting you can jump into things prematurely and get into trouble, while if you spend too much time reflecting you may never get anything done".
SENSING AND INTUITIVE LEARNER
SENSING AND INTUITIVE LEARNER
My score was 9 on the sensing end of this scale which indicates I have a very strong preference for being a sensing learner. According to Felder and Soloman, this means that I may "rely too much on memorisation and familiar methods and not concentrate enough on understanding and innovative thinking".
Felder and Soloman state that being predominately a sensory learner means that I remember and understand information best if I can see how it connects to the real world and that I have difficulty with learning materials that are abstract and theoretical. To assist me with learning abstract and theoretical concepts I need to ask for or seek out specific examples of concepts and procedures, and find out how the concepts apply in practice.
Felder and Soloman state that being predominately a sensory learner means that I remember and understand information best if I can see how it connects to the real world and that I have difficulty with learning materials that are abstract and theoretical. To assist me with learning abstract and theoretical concepts I need to ask for or seek out specific examples of concepts and procedures, and find out how the concepts apply in practice.
VISUAL AND VERBAL LEARNERS
My score was 11 on the visual end of this scale which indicates I have a very strong preference for being a visual learner. Felder and Soloman suggest that in "classes where very little visual information is presented" (eg listening to lectures and reading material written on boards and in textbooks and handouts) I don't get nearly as much out of it as I would if more material was presented visually.
Felder and Soloman recommend that visual learners try to "find diagrams, sketches, schematics, photographs, flowcharts, or any other visual representation of course material that is predominantly verbal". They also recommend that I prepare a "concept map by listing key points, enclosing them in boxes or circles, and drawing lines with arrows between concepts to show connections". Their final suggestion was to "colour-code [my] notes with a highlighter so that everything relating to one topic is the same colour". In fact I have learnt by experience to do these things and they do help me to learn and remember material.
Felder and Soloman recommend that visual learners try to "find diagrams, sketches, schematics, photographs, flowcharts, or any other visual representation of course material that is predominantly verbal". They also recommend that I prepare a "concept map by listing key points, enclosing them in boxes or circles, and drawing lines with arrows between concepts to show connections". Their final suggestion was to "colour-code [my] notes with a highlighter so that everything relating to one topic is the same colour". In fact I have learnt by experience to do these things and they do help me to learn and remember material.
SEQUENTIAL AND GLOBAL LEARNERS
My score was 5 on the sequential end of this scale which indicates I have a moderate preference for being a sequential learner. Felder and Soloman argue that as a sequential learner I tend to "gain understanding in linear steps, with each step following logically from the previous one". I like to follow logical stepwise paths in finding solutions.
Felder and Soloman assert that as "most [university] courses are taught in a sequential manner" sequential learners are well catered for in the tertiary environment. However, if a sequential learner has a lecturer "who jumps around from topic to topic or skips steps [they] have difficulty following and remembering". And that is certainly the case with my own learning. When I am studying I need to take the time to outline the lecture material and other course content in a logical order. If I don't do that I spend a lot of time 'fluffing around' not really understanding what is required. Felder and Soloman recommend that sequential learners like myself "strengthen [our] global thinking skills by relating each new topic" to things that are already known. Again these are techniques that I have learnt to apply in my own learning in order to make sense of the learning materials.
Indeed, I have found the first week of ICTs for Learning Design to be quite challenging as it is not set out in a sequential manner. The learning materials have multiple links and I found myself getting lost very quickly. The Weekly overview by Wendy and the fact that I printed out ALL the learning materials for week 1 and arranged them sequentially on my desk was the only way I could work out exactly what was required in this first week of EDED20491.
Overall I believe that this test did indeed give an accurate reflection of my learning styles. It also revealed to me why I do some of the things I do, for example why I have to write notes to remember information from classes and meetings. I have over the years developed strategies to assist and support my learning. I think that if I had done this test years ago I would have saved myself much time and effort through trial and error when exploring techniques to support my learning.
Felder and Soloman assert that as "most [university] courses are taught in a sequential manner" sequential learners are well catered for in the tertiary environment. However, if a sequential learner has a lecturer "who jumps around from topic to topic or skips steps [they] have difficulty following and remembering". And that is certainly the case with my own learning. When I am studying I need to take the time to outline the lecture material and other course content in a logical order. If I don't do that I spend a lot of time 'fluffing around' not really understanding what is required. Felder and Soloman recommend that sequential learners like myself "strengthen [our] global thinking skills by relating each new topic" to things that are already known. Again these are techniques that I have learnt to apply in my own learning in order to make sense of the learning materials.
Indeed, I have found the first week of ICTs for Learning Design to be quite challenging as it is not set out in a sequential manner. The learning materials have multiple links and I found myself getting lost very quickly. The Weekly overview by Wendy and the fact that I printed out ALL the learning materials for week 1 and arranged them sequentially on my desk was the only way I could work out exactly what was required in this first week of EDED20491.
Overall I believe that this test did indeed give an accurate reflection of my learning styles. It also revealed to me why I do some of the things I do, for example why I have to write notes to remember information from classes and meetings. I have over the years developed strategies to assist and support my learning. I think that if I had done this test years ago I would have saved myself much time and effort through trial and error when exploring techniques to support my learning.
2. In a traditional classroom of 25 students, how would you support the range of learning styles in each lesson?
Of course to answer this question well I would need to know how old the students are, what subject I am teaching them and a profile of their learning styles. Given that this answer has to be generic, I think that because I am an active, reflective, sensing, visual and sequential learner that I will naturally cater for those learning styles when I create my lesson plans. What I need to do is to review my lesson plans to ensure that I have also catered for, and included material and activities suitable to, intuitive, verbal and global learners. This may mean that I need to seek out a critical friend who is an intuitive, verbal and global learner so that I can ask them for feedback on my lesson plans.
3. With your current knowledge of ICT, how could your design and digital pedagogy support your learners better?
This is a really good question. I will need to be mindful of the differing learning styles that will be in my classes and work carefully to ensure that I cater to all the learning styles. this may mean introducing some extra materials which will be presented in different ways to cater for differing learning styles. There will be a lot of trial and error while I work out what design and pedagogies work best to support my learners.
4. What sorts of profiling questions would you be asking about your learners to ensure you cater for everyone's preferences?
In one of the first lessons I could ask the students to complete a learning styles questionnaire online. Then I could ask them to send me the results. An analysis of the results would show me the range of learning styles present in the classroom. I could the talk to the students about their learning preferences and reflect on how best to incorporate their needs when planning lessons.
In one of the first lessons I could ask the students to complete a learning styles questionnaire online. Then I could ask them to send me the results. An analysis of the results would show me the range of learning styles present in the classroom. I could the talk to the students about their learning preferences and reflect on how best to incorporate their needs when planning lessons.
5. How does ICT support differences in learning styles?
ICT is a great tool to support differences in learning styles. As a teacher I could source different materials that cover the content and present them to the learners. There would be a guide at the beginning of the class to indicate which materials to cover depending on your individual learning style. If each student had their own computer or mobile device they could then follow the materials that are best suited to their own learning style. Then at the end of the class I would get the students to talk about what they have learnt and to share with their fellow students. I would also ask some of the list makers to take good notes to share with the other students.
ICT is a great tool to support differences in learning styles. As a teacher I could source different materials that cover the content and present them to the learners. There would be a guide at the beginning of the class to indicate which materials to cover depending on your individual learning style. If each student had their own computer or mobile device they could then follow the materials that are best suited to their own learning style. Then at the end of the class I would get the students to talk about what they have learnt and to share with their fellow students. I would also ask some of the list makers to take good notes to share with the other students.
6. Reflection on the implications for online learning design.
I would keep in my mind that the technology is just a vehicle to support the learning and teaching. Deciding what you need to teach and what strategies you are going to use are most important then look for the technology. The teaching strategies that I implement will need to recognise and respect the four dimensions of learning styles as described by Felder and Soloman. Success in online learning can be achieved by providing lessons that are in a manner consistent with the learning styles of the students in my classes. I should use a combination of different techniques and teaching strategies so that it is possible for students with all types of learning styles to be successful in my classes.
I should also keep in mind that though I should endeavour to cater for how each student learns best that I also need to ensure that each student experiences a variety of learning experiences so that they can learn to become more well-rounded learners who can learn from a variety of teaching strategies.
I would keep in my mind that the technology is just a vehicle to support the learning and teaching. Deciding what you need to teach and what strategies you are going to use are most important then look for the technology. The teaching strategies that I implement will need to recognise and respect the four dimensions of learning styles as described by Felder and Soloman. Success in online learning can be achieved by providing lessons that are in a manner consistent with the learning styles of the students in my classes. I should use a combination of different techniques and teaching strategies so that it is possible for students with all types of learning styles to be successful in my classes.
I should also keep in mind that though I should endeavour to cater for how each student learns best that I also need to ensure that each student experiences a variety of learning experiences so that they can learn to become more well-rounded learners who can learn from a variety of teaching strategies.
Engagement Activity 2: Multiple Intelligences
1. Undertake the Multiple Intelligences test.
My results indicate that I am very strong in the areas of Logic and Visual/Spatial Intelligences. This is consistent to my results in Felder and Soloman's Learning Styles questionnaire. They also indicate I have strong results for Naturalistic, Kinesthetic, Intrapersonal and Interpersonal Intelligences. My weakest intelligence is in Music. This too is consistent with the results from the Learning Styles questionnaire where verbal learning was a weakness for me. I think that this test was a fair assessment of my Multiple Intelligences. I also understand that I have a high rating for a number of intelligences because I am a mature-aged student. My life experiences have provided me with much more self-awareness than what may be the case for teenagers or people in their early 20s.
2. How would you use this information to inform your learning design?
As stated with the learning styles I would prepare learning materials that cater for a number of different intelligences. I would need to pay particular attention to how best to use sound and music as that aspect is a weakness of mine. I do however live with a teenager who loves music so I am sure that she could suggest some suitable music to enhance my lessons.
As stated with the learning styles I would prepare learning materials that cater for a number of different intelligences. I would need to pay particular attention to how best to use sound and music as that aspect is a weakness of mine. I do however live with a teenager who loves music so I am sure that she could suggest some suitable music to enhance my lessons.
3. Reflection about the potential in your learning design with ICT to support multiple intelligences.
Similar to my response to how learning styles influence my learning design I would also endeavour to expose my students to a range of Intelligences in my classes. Just as I have to learn to use sound and music more I would encourage my students to explore intelligences in which they are not strong.
Similar to my response to how learning styles influence my learning design I would also endeavour to expose my students to a range of Intelligences in my classes. Just as I have to learn to use sound and music more I would encourage my students to explore intelligences in which they are not strong.
Engagement Activity 3: Reflection on Prensky's ideas
1. Consider the articles in the Learning materials, by Prensky and those who seek to clarify his position through research.
The following is a reflection on three readings by Marc Prensky:
Prensky (2001a) Digital natives or digital immigrants (Part 1).
Prensky (2001b) Digital natives or digital immigrants (Part 2).
Prensky (2005) Engage me or enrage me.
Prensky (2001a) begins with a bold statement, "Our students have changed radically. Today’s students are no longer the people our educational system was designed to teach (p. 1, emphasis in original)". This statement is bold in both senses of the word: displaying a willingness to take risks, confident and courageous; and written in bold type for emphasis (Oxford English Dictionary). In every generation there are young people who have grown up with different lived experiences to the previous generation. I don't agree that todays' students, who Prensky refers to as "digital natives", are significantly more different to their parents' generation than their parents were to their grandparents. For example I grew up with television, my parents grew up with the radio and my grandparents didn't have electricity. Yes our experiences growing up all differed in the three generations but I would not describe the differences as 'radical' or that exposure to certain technologies made us demand that those technologies be employed to teach us. I did not expect or demand that all my education came via the television just as my parents didn't expect their education to rely primarily on the radio. I agree that my 14 year-old daughter, who is growing up exposed to many computer-based technologies, is experiencing a different upbringing to to me but I don't see her demanding that her teachers use technology to teach her. In fact she says that often she doesn't turn her computer on at school as she prefers to listen and take notes. The computer distracts her.
Prensky (2001a, 2001b, & 2005) is essentially arguing for the Gamification of education. The "gamification" of education is to incorporate social/reward aspects of games into software. Gamification is a term coined by Nick Pelling (2002). In Prensky's view learning materials be computer-based and have built-in rewards systems. It is noted that Prenksy runs a company (Games2Train) that creates computer games. Hence you could argue that he will be biased towards games as being a solution to the educational problem he describes as that could have a positive effect on his business. Unlike Prensky I believe that learning is much more than interacting with a computer. In formal learning activities there is also informal learning occuring where the students learn to interact and work with their peers. This experience is as important and as valid as the formal learning activity. In my opinion gamification is one technique that could be utilised in a learning experience. It is one of many techniques that a teacher should have in her teaching toolbox.
I did like reading Prensky's work and believe he does have some insight for improving learning and teaching. I would argue however that the secret to creating engaging educational experiences is to incorporate some software where it is useful and appropriate. As with all things in life I believe that moderation and variety are important. Some use of game-based educational materials would create interest in the class, but I would like to have many other techniques and strategies available also to create a balance of technology and non-technology activities in the classroom.
Prensky (2001a) makes a valid point when he argues that for teachers to change and use technology to support their teaching that "their successes will come that much sooner if their administrators support them". This has been my experience in teaching in the tertiary sector. The administrators want the organisation to be considered innovative but the support is not there for the educators to be given the flexibility they need to implement innovative teaching strategies. The systems (computer and administrative) are too controlling.
Prensky's (2001a) work has coined the terms "digital native" and "digital immigrant" and these terms have been used extensively in the literature. I think that they are useful tools for educators to use when describing learners. But it should not be assumed that all young people (born since 1990) are digital natives nor should we assume that older students are all digital immigrants.
The following is a reflection on three readings by Marc Prensky:
Prensky (2001a) Digital natives or digital immigrants (Part 1).
Prensky (2001b) Digital natives or digital immigrants (Part 2).
Prensky (2005) Engage me or enrage me.
Prensky (2001a) begins with a bold statement, "Our students have changed radically. Today’s students are no longer the people our educational system was designed to teach (p. 1, emphasis in original)". This statement is bold in both senses of the word: displaying a willingness to take risks, confident and courageous; and written in bold type for emphasis (Oxford English Dictionary). In every generation there are young people who have grown up with different lived experiences to the previous generation. I don't agree that todays' students, who Prensky refers to as "digital natives", are significantly more different to their parents' generation than their parents were to their grandparents. For example I grew up with television, my parents grew up with the radio and my grandparents didn't have electricity. Yes our experiences growing up all differed in the three generations but I would not describe the differences as 'radical' or that exposure to certain technologies made us demand that those technologies be employed to teach us. I did not expect or demand that all my education came via the television just as my parents didn't expect their education to rely primarily on the radio. I agree that my 14 year-old daughter, who is growing up exposed to many computer-based technologies, is experiencing a different upbringing to to me but I don't see her demanding that her teachers use technology to teach her. In fact she says that often she doesn't turn her computer on at school as she prefers to listen and take notes. The computer distracts her.
Prensky (2001a, 2001b, & 2005) is essentially arguing for the Gamification of education. The "gamification" of education is to incorporate social/reward aspects of games into software. Gamification is a term coined by Nick Pelling (2002). In Prensky's view learning materials be computer-based and have built-in rewards systems. It is noted that Prenksy runs a company (Games2Train) that creates computer games. Hence you could argue that he will be biased towards games as being a solution to the educational problem he describes as that could have a positive effect on his business. Unlike Prensky I believe that learning is much more than interacting with a computer. In formal learning activities there is also informal learning occuring where the students learn to interact and work with their peers. This experience is as important and as valid as the formal learning activity. In my opinion gamification is one technique that could be utilised in a learning experience. It is one of many techniques that a teacher should have in her teaching toolbox.
I did like reading Prensky's work and believe he does have some insight for improving learning and teaching. I would argue however that the secret to creating engaging educational experiences is to incorporate some software where it is useful and appropriate. As with all things in life I believe that moderation and variety are important. Some use of game-based educational materials would create interest in the class, but I would like to have many other techniques and strategies available also to create a balance of technology and non-technology activities in the classroom.
Prensky (2001a) makes a valid point when he argues that for teachers to change and use technology to support their teaching that "their successes will come that much sooner if their administrators support them". This has been my experience in teaching in the tertiary sector. The administrators want the organisation to be considered innovative but the support is not there for the educators to be given the flexibility they need to implement innovative teaching strategies. The systems (computer and administrative) are too controlling.
Prensky's (2001a) work has coined the terms "digital native" and "digital immigrant" and these terms have been used extensively in the literature. I think that they are useful tools for educators to use when describing learners. But it should not be assumed that all young people (born since 1990) are digital natives nor should we assume that older students are all digital immigrants.
2. What is your belief and understanding of the nature of today's learners? Do they really "demand" technology in the classroom?
I disagree with Prensky's argument that if educational materials are not game-based then it won't engage the students. I have observed in my daughter's classrooms that there can be activities that engage the students that are not necessarily computer-based. For example, guest speakers coming in to talk to the children, my daughter's grade 5 teacher would read aloud to her students with such passion that some students cried with the teacher when something sad happened in the story. I have also seen her class engage with the learning on mini-excursions in and around the school.
There is an interesting perspective on Digital Natives on a blog post by David Jones at USQ Many of our students are neither digital natives nor digitally literate where he describes how educators make assumptions about the technical abilities of their students and then found those assumptions are wrong.
3. Is there substance to the "engage or enrage" argument?
I disagree with Prensky's argument that if educational materials are not game-based then it won't engage the students. I have observed in my daughter's classrooms that there can be activities that engage the students that are not necessarily computer-based. For example, guest speakers coming in to talk to the children, my daughter's grade 5 teacher would read aloud to her students with such passion that some students cried with the teacher when something sad happened in the story. I have also seen her class engage with the learning on mini-excursions in and around the school.
There is an interesting perspective on Digital Natives on a blog post by David Jones at USQ Many of our students are neither digital natives nor digitally literate where he describes how educators make assumptions about the technical abilities of their students and then found those assumptions are wrong.
3. Is there substance to the "engage or enrage" argument?
Students do not and should not be "plugged in" 24/7. They do need to learn to engage with each other, with adults and with the environment. Technology provides useful tools to assist and support learning.
My most recent experience of school classrooms has been through my daughter's primary school education and the beginning of her high school education. I have not witnessed students being "enraged" because they are not being provided with games and technology in class. I have however heard many stories about my daughter's friends who stay up late into the night texting each other and reading and posting messages on Facebook. These friends are not fully engaging at school but I am convinced that if these same children were transported back 30 years in time they would still not engage with school and their spare time would be spent calling each other on the phone and watching TV. I believe that personality and upbringing are big influences on how and why children chose to engage or not with school work.
My most recent experience of school classrooms has been through my daughter's primary school education and the beginning of her high school education. I have not witnessed students being "enraged" because they are not being provided with games and technology in class. I have however heard many stories about my daughter's friends who stay up late into the night texting each other and reading and posting messages on Facebook. These friends are not fully engaging at school but I am convinced that if these same children were transported back 30 years in time they would still not engage with school and their spare time would be spent calling each other on the phone and watching TV. I believe that personality and upbringing are big influences on how and why children chose to engage or not with school work.
Engagement Activity 4: Reflection on Connectivism
1. A number of authors contest Siemens' ideas. It is unsettling to be challenged about existing perceptions of "knowing", in particular, the lack of purpose in asking our students to KNOW and be able to RECALL what they know in assessment. Many academics contest these ideas because they are not yet supported by research, rather, they are a position about the nature of learning. They also contend that learning is a state within the individual, and therefore connectivism cannot be regarded as a theory of learning, rather a theory about how learning is best supported.
2. Do you agree with them? Can you see Siemen's point of view? What is your position?
Are there any real-life situations where one person has to be able to "KNOW and RECALL" everything there is to know about a particular topic? When you start work there are usually other people to ask when you need to know something or you would look up a book or for the last 10 years or so you could 'Google' it. The education system is obsessed by grading people and traditionally this has been done by learning and then regurgitating that knowledge for an assessment item. I think it is time we moved on from that mentality. So in answer to the question I would argue that I don't agree with the premise.
I agree that connectivism as it is defined in this article by Siemens (2004) could not be consider as a full-blown theory of learning. I know that there has been many more papers written about it since 2004 but at do not have the time to gatehr and analyse these papers for this exercise.
I do think that connectivism does have the potential to develop into a fully blown theory of learning. I don't believe that anyone person can know all there is to know on a particular topic. We all need to make connections to help us learn what we need to know at the time that we need that information.
A problem with all four of the learning theories (behaviourism, cognitivism, constructivism and connectivism) as discussed in the learning materials is how they portray the concept of learning. Behaviourism bases knowledge as being gained through experience, but that learning is unknowable - as we can't understand what goes on in another person's brain. If that is correct how we can possibly test learning? Cognitivism indicates that knowledge is negotiated through experience and thinking and that learning is like a computer, data is input, processing occurs in short term memory and that learning occurs when that knowledge is hard-coded in the brain. Having worked with computers for many years I believe that learning is more complex than coding knowledge into the brain. Constructivism implies that knowledge is constructed and that learners create meaning through their experiences which is their learning. This implies that learning only occurs when building onto something you already know. Whereas connectivism proposes that learning can "reside outside of ourselves". I don't agree that learning can reside outside of our brain. What I do think is that connectivism would be better to define learning as knowing where and how to access data and information from other outside sources and be able to assess quickly if that data and information will be useful to us.
Of the four learning theories discussed in this week's materials I would argue that a combination of constructivism and connectivism would be closer to how I view learning. Constructivist theorists acknowledge that learning is "messy and complex" and that as teachers we should be teaching the students to prepare for life-long learning. Connectivism then adds to this by proposing that now in the digital age it is easier for individuals to connect with other people and things that are stored in a digital format. This allows people to connect to other sources of data and information much quicker than in the past and also, very importantly, allows them to search for data and information quickly.
3. Give an example of ways in which you could use this theory in your classroom/learning context?
2. Do you agree with them? Can you see Siemen's point of view? What is your position?
Are there any real-life situations where one person has to be able to "KNOW and RECALL" everything there is to know about a particular topic? When you start work there are usually other people to ask when you need to know something or you would look up a book or for the last 10 years or so you could 'Google' it. The education system is obsessed by grading people and traditionally this has been done by learning and then regurgitating that knowledge for an assessment item. I think it is time we moved on from that mentality. So in answer to the question I would argue that I don't agree with the premise.
I agree that connectivism as it is defined in this article by Siemens (2004) could not be consider as a full-blown theory of learning. I know that there has been many more papers written about it since 2004 but at do not have the time to gatehr and analyse these papers for this exercise.
I do think that connectivism does have the potential to develop into a fully blown theory of learning. I don't believe that anyone person can know all there is to know on a particular topic. We all need to make connections to help us learn what we need to know at the time that we need that information.
A problem with all four of the learning theories (behaviourism, cognitivism, constructivism and connectivism) as discussed in the learning materials is how they portray the concept of learning. Behaviourism bases knowledge as being gained through experience, but that learning is unknowable - as we can't understand what goes on in another person's brain. If that is correct how we can possibly test learning? Cognitivism indicates that knowledge is negotiated through experience and thinking and that learning is like a computer, data is input, processing occurs in short term memory and that learning occurs when that knowledge is hard-coded in the brain. Having worked with computers for many years I believe that learning is more complex than coding knowledge into the brain. Constructivism implies that knowledge is constructed and that learners create meaning through their experiences which is their learning. This implies that learning only occurs when building onto something you already know. Whereas connectivism proposes that learning can "reside outside of ourselves". I don't agree that learning can reside outside of our brain. What I do think is that connectivism would be better to define learning as knowing where and how to access data and information from other outside sources and be able to assess quickly if that data and information will be useful to us.
Of the four learning theories discussed in this week's materials I would argue that a combination of constructivism and connectivism would be closer to how I view learning. Constructivist theorists acknowledge that learning is "messy and complex" and that as teachers we should be teaching the students to prepare for life-long learning. Connectivism then adds to this by proposing that now in the digital age it is easier for individuals to connect with other people and things that are stored in a digital format. This allows people to connect to other sources of data and information much quicker than in the past and also, very importantly, allows them to search for data and information quickly.
3. Give an example of ways in which you could use this theory in your classroom/learning context?
Given that I am in my first week of teaching training I think that I can't really answer this question at the present time. I would need to know more about the students in the class, their previous experiences and what access they have to other knowledge sources to be used both in class and outside class. Will come back to this after I start prac-teaching.
No comments:
Post a Comment