Module 6 Responses

I responded to
Bradley Gogan
Christine Rand

Module 6 Blog

I have to say that this ranks as one of the hardest blog questions we have had this term.  What is my philosophy of learning?  As both a teacher and a learner, I would like to think that I have a perspective what shows both sides of the learning question.  I think, though, that I don’t always have that holistic perspective.  Technology is important in learning.  As a learner, I know this.  As a teacher who works predominately online, I believe this to a point – until I have a student that does not have the basic technology skills to be successful in an online environment.  Motivation, goal setting, attention to detail, perseverance, and a love of learning are vital in any learning environment – online or face-to-face.  In an online environment, though, students have to learn how to do these things without being reminded.  My five must haves to learn fit into my philosophy of learning.

Sir Ken Robinson (2011) noted that education is personal.  We each come to education for our own reasons and with our own experiences that will inevitably affect our education.  If something is meaningful to me, I will strive harder to learn to have it in my life.  Believing that education is personal reminds me that I have to set goals and motivate myself to meet those goals.  Learning is not an end game.  A diploma is not the end of the road.  To me, learning is a lifelong activity.  In our journey, we may cross roads we have traveled and we may forge new roads.  The point is that we continue to learn and grow.

My philosophy of learning is pretty straightforward – learning is personal and learning is lifelong.  The act of learning does not need to occur in a classroom nor because of a book or a theory.  I very much agree with Siemens and his thoughts on connectivism.  Siemens (2006) noted that connectivism makes connections “that enable us to learn more are more important than our current state of knowing” (p. 30).  These connections are not tied to a school, to a book, or to one person.  Rather, we form networks that feed us knowledge as we feed it.  Learning is not linear.  It meanders and finds its way.  Connectivism allows this because the network is not linear.  Connectivism is also an applicable theory because it allows the individual to form their own connections while making connections with others.  Learning is at once an individual and a team sport with no rules.

Technology applies to my philosophy of learning for one simple fact – learning should be flat and easily accessible.  I believe that technology flattens education and gives all a chance.  Yes there are problems with equitable access; however, technology allows more people to access learning institutions and learning in general than face-to-face campuses.  Open sources, Google , eReaders, the list can go on forever on how technology has changed how and why we learn.

In relating my five criteria for learning, I have to include a thought from Randy Pausch (2008):

But remember, the brick walls are there for a reason.  The brick walls are not there to keep us out.  The brick walls are there to give us a chance to show how badly we want something.  Because the brick walls are there to stop the people who don’t want it badly enough.  They’re there to stop the other people.

Learning means taking risks and chances.  Learning means relying on one’s self as well as one’s network.  Learning is a work in progress.

References

Pausch, R. (2008).  The last lecture.  New York: Hyperion.

Robinson, K.  (2011). Interview. Future of Education Webinar. 

Siemens, G. (2006). Knowing knowledge.  Canada: Author.

Module 5 Blog

I will try anything once.  Sometimes even twice if I am not sure.  This applies to the classroom too.  Almost five years ago I started working for an online for profit university.  This was not my first time teaching online and I had been teaching for about fourteen years at that point.  I felt very confident in my abilities.  Then I got the curve ball.  Professional development and technology.  WHAT?!  I could barely wrap my brain around all of it.  So, I jumped in with both feet.  Whatever training was offered, I took it.  I started noticing that my students responded when I tried some of the tricks I was learning.

Early on, I used a visual approach in sending information to my students – pictures, 14 point font, etc.  Then I took a training called Super Charge Your Announcement’s.  The founder of the school’s Innovation lab taught this.  I learned a new way to take my static text with an awkwardly placed picture announcement and make it into JPEG awesomeness.  To this day, whenever someone asks me to show them what I do, we start with the PPT to JPEG tutorial.

Integrating technology is not easy.  Currently, I use a Twitter feed in my classroom and I link out to Diigo and Blogger (we have a class topic blog).  This is the second term I have used this.  When I first started using these tools, I had to justify the visual design of my class to my chair.  Because he would have to embed the Twitter feed, I had to explain why I needed to use Twitter.  Luckily, my chair believed in my vision.  Diggo and Blogger are easy sales.  They are not changing the design of the course and students can use them if they want to or not – it’s their choice.  Twitter is a little different.  At first, students were freaked out that I would be sending them tweets of what I was eating and things of that nature.  In class, we talked about the types of alerts I would post to Twitter – due dates, when I posted something of note to the class site, reminders, etc.  Students were hesitant but deiced to try it.  I had three students start following me and the remainder of the class followed on the class site.  Then the inevitable happened.  Our portal was changed and crashed.  Students were locked out of the class site.  One, then three, then ten students emailed, IMed and called me “TWEET US WHAT TO DO!”  That wasn’t even grammatically correct but I started hitting the tweet waves.  My students stayed on top of what was going on.  They all came back to class once the portal was us (fourteen agonizing days later).  I did not lose one student while many of my cohort colleagues lost students in the portal shuffle. To me, I had hit the big time.  This technology that I had been hesitant with was rocking and keeping my students informed.

Then, IT happened.  I went from teaching our four/fifth term students to our second/third term students.  This term my students hate Twitter.  No one is following the class tweets and they report that they don’t like the feed in the class.

I had an exceptional instructor last term that challenged me to learn more about the ARCS model and really thing about the design aspect.  As a result, I recently did a professional development training on motivation and ARCS (if you are interested in the PPT, let me know and I will happily share).

As I was thinking about my current students’ resistance to Twitter and how I could change that resistance, I thought back to Keller.  What would Keller do?!  RELEVANCE!  How is Twitter relevant to my students’ experience and to their goals? 

This made me refer to TED:

Stanley McChrystal

Dan Pink

The light bulb popped on!  TIME.  My students’ time is their motivational factor.  To make Twitter relevant to my students, I have to show them how it relates to their time management strategies and maintaining their goals.

Last Sunday in our weekly seminar, I said “Hey has anyone checked out the Twitter link today?”  Of course students started typing that Twitter was lame and they were anti-Twitter.  I said “Cool.  I just wanted you all to know that if you are pinched for time, every day the Twitter feed tells you what is the urgent task for the day is.”  A student asked “you mean you tell us what to do on Twitter?”  I affirmed that and encouraged them to look at the class site.  A student typed in “WOW!  You remind of what time seminar is and yesterday you posted a help sheet.”  The light bulb came on again!  I am not sure that I have a devoted following like I did last term but we will see how the rest of the term goes and if students consider it a worthwhile investment of their time.

Works consulted:

Ellsworth, E. (2011).  Motivating Adult Learners. Presentation for CTL Live Event, Kaplan Univerity.

Keller, J. M. (1987a). Development and use of the ARCS model of motivational design. Journal of Instructional Development, 10(3), 2 – 10.

Keller, J. M. (1987b). Strategies for stimulating the motivation to learn. Performance & Instruction, 26(8), 1-7.

Keller, J. M. (1999). Motivation in cyber learning environments. Educational Technology International, 1(1), 7 – 30.

Keller’s Website:

http://www.arcsmodel.com/home.htm

Module 5 Blog responses

I responded to:
Christine Rand
Bianca Lochner
Wanda Ardoin Bailey

Module 4 Blog Responses

In Module 4, I responded to:
Bradley Gogan
Christine Rand
Bianca Lochner
Lauren Dart
Christine Moore

Networks and More Networks!

These are some blog posts I noted this week that were related to networking, technology, mentorship, etc.


Tuition Free Universities:
http://theinnovativeeducator.blogspot.com/2011/04/tuition-free-university-level-studies.html


Self Help for Technology:
http://cyber-kap.blogspot.com/2011/04/top-10-self-help-sites-for-technology.html


Advice to New Teachers:
http://www.freetech4teachers.com/2011/04/advice-to-new-graduates-that-will-be.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+freetech4teachers%2FcGEY+%28Free+Technology+for+Teachers%29

Module 4 Blog

My MindMap

After doing this map, I realized that a lot of what I do is intuitive.  I don't realize everything I use.

Years ago, I taught for the Navy onboard deployed naval vessels.  Until that time, I never gave thought to my network and PLN was not a concept used!  Once I started teaching solo, away from colleagues, I learned how important PLNs are.  At the time, I had email as the way to connect to colleagues.  Today, I use a variety of tools to connect within my network.

My network has changed the way I learn.  I am more apt to try new technologies especially since I know that many in my network are working with technologies.  I have also started to use PLN recommendations for trying new technologies.  My knowledge base on overall, non-technical topics, however, has grown the most.  Because of the networks I have created, I have found relevant and time worthy professional development opportunities.  I find that with these opportunities, I am stepping outside my comfort zone more.

I tinker.  That means I use a lot of different tools until I find what works best for me.  I am easily agitated when someone goofs a technology they are using to teach something.  I think for any technology to be effective and useful, the presenter/teacher needs to be comfortable with the technology.  If they aren’t, the whole experience is painful.  Power Point and narrated PPTs are hideous in my opinion.  I learn nothing from these.  Seeing the same information published in a video from Voice Thread or similar is superior in my opinion.  I learn more even though it is the same information.  Videos, podcasts, and vodcasts are the top technologies in what I find useful.  Blogging is a low-tech tool that I also find useful when I am learning new information.  I find these super helpful, especially when they link out.

When I have questions or need resources, I have two starters.  The first is Google.  The second is my PLN.  I really can’t say why I choose Google as my search engine.  I just do because it rarely disappoints.  I can also switch to Google Scholar with one click.  This saves time because I am not stopping and then starting a new search.  In the last couple of years, I have spent time cultivating my PLN.  This is also a philosophy I preach to my students.  The more people you know, the more you know. 

Because I tinker and explore, I think that I have found real gems both virtually and in real life.  I think the key is to be open to exploring and playing around with new technologies.  More important, I think it’s important to network and make connections with people we may never know.

I am a huge fan of Clay Shirky and his thoughts on networks:

This is a new find from Steven Johnson on how connections are what really make those AH HA! moments.

This is a cool TED link on collaboration:

http://www.ted.com/themes/the_rise_of_collaboration.html

Module 3 Responses

This week, I responded to:
Christine Rand
Christine Moore
Wanda Ardoin-Bailey

Module 3 Blog

Rheingold’s TED talk makes sense.  I agree with him that society has always taken collective action to move society ahead.  Humans have a nature that encourages them to reach out to others to make connections.  Rheingold makes this point in his illustration of bring down the dinosaur for food.  Working together betters society.  The Prisoner’s Dilemma, as Rheingold illustrates, is a twist on the idea that humans work together.  Yes, humans can work together; however, inevitably, humans will choose their own safety over that of another.

Seth Godin offers a different perspective with his idea on change and tribes:

Working together for a common cause creates change.  Collaboration integrated with constructivism, then, shows links on one person’s learning/experience to another’s.  Driscoll (2005) noted, “constructivist theory rests on the assumption that knowledge is constructed by learners as they attempt to make sense of their experiences” (p. 387).  My knowledge is different from your knowledge because of my own experiences.  Linking this to Godin and Rheingold, it is evident that collaboration is a part of survival.  However, collaboration must be thoughtful and reinforce the good of the group (think back to Rheingold’s example of the dinosaur and Godin’s thoughts on how things are consumed).  Rheingold’s perspective offers how a group survives because the group shares a common goal.  Godin, on the other hand, offers a perspective that a goal makes a tribe that will support a goal.  The link between the two is really constructivism and collaboration.  Constructivist look to gain and build knowledge based on experience (experience of hunting the dinosaur, experience of a shared interests).  Collaboration occurs when we seek out those that have the common goals we have.  We then take these interests (Godin) to be successful (Rheingold).  The great thing about both Rheingold and Godin make the important point that you can seek to enhance your experience with those that have that experience.  Knowledge acquisition, then, is seeking connections through collaboration.

The research study I reviewed is an overview of the last twenty years of research related to the application of technologies used for collaboration (Resta & Laferrièr, 2007).  The authors state that in order to understand the wide interest in technology and collaboration, the history of these technologies must be understood.  Resta and Laferrièr, (2007) wrote,  “The recent interest in technology-supported collaborative learning in higher education represents a confluence of trends: the development of new tools to support collaboration, the emergence of constructivist-based approaches to teaching and learning, and the need to create more powerful and engaging learning environments” (p. 65).  Interestingly (even though this is in the five year requirement), much of what is discussed here is already out of date.  The collaboration that extends out of constructivism and technology have occurred and moved to new labels.  This article, though, is important in that it shows the beginnings and the possibilities of how beginning change.

References

Driscoll, M. P. (2005).  Psychology for learning instruction (3^rd ED).  Boston: Pearson/Allyn and Bacon.

Godin, S. (2009).  Seth Godin Explains Why You Need a Tribe [video file].  Retrieved from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q6vpBDFoMqc

Resta, P. and Laferrièr, T. (2007).  Technology in Support of Collaborative Learning.  Educational psychology review, 19. 65-83.  DOI 10.1007/s10648-007-9042-7

Rheingold, H. (2008, February). Howard Rheingold on collaboration [Video file]. Retrieved from
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/howard_rheingold_on_collaboration.html

Module 2 Blog Responses

This week, I responded to:
Bradley Gogan
Christine Rand

Module 2 Blog

Kapp recently posted on his blog a response to the –isms of educational theory.  What is compelling about Kapp’s blog is that he invites us into an ongoing discussion.  How better to learn and see the nuances of a theory than to watch the discourse between important thinkers?

Kapp links back to Kerr.  The basic thought they are sharing is that each new –ism (theory) is a new idea.  But, the idea is not a STAND ALONE idea.  It is dependent on something else. Technically, then, learning theories (behaviorism, cogntivism, constructivism, et al)  are linked.  Yes, each has its own focus – behavior, thought process, constructing meaning.  Consider an example:  I am learning a foreign language.  Rote memorization and repetition allows me to learn the sounds of the language.  Repeating in class to my instructor, I gain feedback on my work.  I then move into a Second Life café environment to chat with a fellow learner to improve my vocabulary and pronunciation.  Each step in this process takes on a different learning theory.  They are all working together to help me form an understanding of the concept.

Kapp (2007) noted, “The issue many forget is that “learning” is not one thing…it is a multi-layered word that tends to get treated as if it were just one thing…and it’s not. It is multi-facetted and that is why developing new models for “learning” is so difficult…there are too many levels for one school of thought or one model to do it all.”  This summarizes it all doesn’t it?!  It’s not just one method we try in the classroom but a variety of methods to ensure students are learning the concept.

Consider this basic overview from Siemens:

It seems that the focus of 21^st Century learning is not the focus on *how* the concept is taught but rather how the student gains that concept.  These are very different.  Teaching cannot be based on one theory.  Rather, several theories must be built upon to find methods to engage students.  Perhaps if students were vessels for us to pour knowledge into, we would be able to focus on one –ism.  Students are not though.  They are all different!  That means that the classroom needs to be a place where their modes of learning are engaged.

Here is an example from a Canadian teacher on how he is revolutionizing his classroom and stepping away from –isms:

http://stumpteacher.blogspot.com/2011/03/class-update-number-2-its-about.html

References

Kapp, K. (2007, January 2). Out and about: Discussion on educational schools of thought [Web log post]. Retrieved fromhttp://www.kaplaneduneering.com/kappnotes/index.php/2007/01/out-and-about-discussion-on-educational/

Kerr, B. (2007, January 1). _isms as filter, not blinker [Web log post]. Retrieved fromhttp://billkerr2.blogspot.com/2007/01/isms-as-filter-not-blinker.html

Module One Blog Responses

For Module one, I responded to:

Christine Rand
Bianca Lochner
Christine Moore

Module One Blog

Siemens noted there are four metaphors of educators.  The first is the Educator as Master Artist.  Siemens (2008) noted “Expertise is still present; not to direct learners to an intended target but to inform and offer perspective shifts based on the work of the masters from generations past” (p. 15).  This metaphor presents some interesting aspects to learning.  The most important is that the learner/student is using their own experience and knowledge to view and mimic the masters to formulate a new form of the knowledge present.  This is a common teaching tool in the arts.  Interestingly, we discourage this in writing.  Mimicking the master can invoke a charge of plagiarism.  Arguably, mimicking the master and learning format is a valuable tool.  However, how does the learner move from one who mimics to one who creates?  I think this is an important facet missing from the Educator as Master Artist.  There needs to be a further step that gives the learner the push to move into a realm of creating knowledge.

The second metaphor is Educator as Network Administrator.  Siemens (2008) formulated this as the educator helps student form connections and learning networks (p. 16).  The networks are then responsible for helping students meet and understand the objectives of the task.  Siemens (2008) also noted that the educator in this model helps students continually question and improve their learning networks as their knowledge grows (p. 16).  The assumption with this metaphor is that the student, network, and educator all work together to improve and move the learner forward with knowledge.  This would require constant reflection on the parts of the learner, the network, and the educator.  The value in this metaphor is that the acquisition of knowledge is always evolving.  The drawback of this metaphor is the activity on all three members.  If one part of the puzzle is not using reflection and critique, the acquisition of knowledge could be changed.  Also, the educator has to be very active and knowledgeable with each learner to ensure that the network works for that learner.

The third metaphor according to Siemens is Educator as Concierge.  Siemens (2008) characterized this type of educator as providing “soft” guidance that combined lectures with learner exploration (p. 16).  This metaphor resembles how some education is carried out in classrooms today.  The instructor gives guidance and sends students off to learn more.  This is a feeling that students can have in distance learning.  There is knowledge available but students have to explore and decide how to use it based on their own interpretation.  The downfall here is that students will not all choose the same path.  Like a concierge at a hotel, the educator can give students the guidance to pick one of the five restaurants in walking distance but it is up to the student to choose the one they want.  Likewise, students will choose how to interpret the knowledge.  While students are gaining meaningful knowledge based on their needs, are they meeting the objectives of the task?  This could vary from student.  This model would also require a high level of motivation on the students’ part.  If they do not move forward with the bits of knowledge the educator has given them. Have they met the outcomes? 

The final metaphor is Educator as Curator.  Siemens (2008) wrote that this educator is “the expert with advanced knowledge” who guides and fosters learners (p. 17).  The model allows the educator to give knowledge and create the boundaries of where students explore with this knowledge.  In this metaphor, learners are still responsible for exploring the knowledge.  The caveat is that they are given explicit guidance to help them navigate the knowledge.  The downside to this model is that students are restricted to the educators use and guidance of the advanced knowledge.  A student may want to break away from the guidance the Educator as Curator gives but the learner is restricted to the path the educator has given.  On the other hand, this model allows the educator the most control over the learning process, ensuring that the objectives of the task are met.

I would like to offer Educator as Transformer.  In this model, the educator breaks the barriers to knowledge and gives students resources to navigate knowledge.  Learners/students should be given license to follow their passions and interests.  Learners need to be told that it is OK to explore.  I have attached a TED video from Sir Ken Robinson (2010).  In it, he talks about personalizing education.  He says “Human flourishing is not a mechanical process, it is an organic process.”  We never truly know the outcomes of human development.  This model needs to be in education.  The Educator as Transformer allows students to become what they will become based on their interests.

Will this model work for everyone?  No.  This model expects that educators will be able to break down barriers and allow students to learn and explore based on the learners’ passions.  This means that the educator has to believe that the students will learn through their own exploration.  It also means that the educator should be available for feedback and guidance as need. Yes, this is a function of the Siemens’s metaphors as well.  The difference, though, is that the educator in this model unanchors learning from prescribed objectives and allows students to explore and gain knowledge.  This is not a skill that can be tested, so it would not work in the current education system.

I agree with Sir Ken that we kill creativity in education.   We expect that all children will learn the same basic facts more or less in the same manner.  We test them on that learning to ensure they have met objectives.  Once they are in the “real” world of work, they lack the skills to critically and to creatively think because that was discouraged in education.  In the digital classroom, we have a responsibility to show students how to transform knowledge into something usable and practical.  The only way to do this is to engage them on their passions.  The digital classroom is perfect for this type of learning because students are given the tools to explore and find more knowledge.  An engaged and passionate student has to trump the student who passes standardized tests but has no real knowledge to apply to global or work situations. 

References

Siemens, G. (2008, January 27). Learning and knowing in networks: Changing roles for educators and designers. Paper presented to ITFORUM. Retrieved from http://it.coe.uga.edu/itforum/Paper105/Siemens.pdf

Welcome

Welcome to my blog!  


This blog was made to fulfill the requirements of EDUC 8845 Spring 2011 term at Walden University.