Wow. I can definitely say that my previous degree is finally coming in handy. I can say I have applied learning theories in how I have conducted a class. But I'm using the information far more in this round of courses than I think I have in practical application.
Discussions are interesting, and I will say I sometimes wonder if we (everyone in class) all read the same paper. Maybe since I (sort of) know what I am looking for in regards to educational theory and pedagogies I have a slightly different focus when I read.
In Moore's editorial: Web 2.0 Does it really matter? I was reading a commentary warning about getting carried away with new technologies. To me he was taking a very Clark stance, that media does not influence learning. He was saying that teaching methodologies, and course design influence learning. To me Moore was saying keep your focus, and then let the technology fit in as it will.
This is how it makes sense: Ok, lets add a blog to class projects. Why? On the surface it seems that throwing in a blog is simply throwing in a blog. Looks like using a technology just because its there. A lot of the responses to using a blog in class are at this level. Now, lets take a look back at course development and design. Cognitive learning theories that are constructivist and social in nature need some form of interaction in addition to the main lesson, that support the main lesson. In DE, participant interaction in limited, and needs to be "encouraged." A lot of educational encouragement is called an assignment or project, since many students will only do the minimum required of them. So the blog assignment is actually a means of "encouraging" additional interaction between students. So now the blog is a tool to encourage social interaction. By limiting the blog topic to reflections on course work, it becomes a tool in social cognitive learning.
Then again, did I "read" the same paper as everyone else from Duffy?
Duffy states "Such socially-based technologies sit well with the understanding of learning as socially constructed, which has been a cornerstone of recent pedagogical theory. Blogs, YouTube and wikis provide a means to
encourage and make visible the social construction of knowledge which such theory postulates, and it is
incumbent on teachers to embrace such tools where their use is beneficial to learners and teachers alike."
Yes this is in support of social constructivist theories. But I don't think that supporting these learning theories needs to necessarily mean that educational design needs to change to cater to twitchy students.
Yes by all means we need to take into account the learning styles of students. Not all students learn the same way. When Duffy claims the students "absorb information quickly" I see that as extremely limiting. Students from the net generation may expect to receive information in quick bite-sizes bits, but it does not mean they absorb and maintain that information. I feel that Duffy is missing something when he points out what Prensky (2004) described as "twitch speed" in the "net generation." I sensed that Duffy is claiming that these students "absorb information quickly" and they expect ease of access and constant communication as a good thing.
Students who expect instant information have the attention span of a gold fish. If information is not instant they dismiss it as not necessary. They definitely are "twitchy," and after having been in classrooms with this generation I feel this is not a good thing. Students who fit within this generation have not learned how to absorb information that does require lengthy explanations. They have not learned patience. They practically do not know how to function with out being plugged into some device. And act as if they are going through addiction withdrawals if they are not allowed access for a prolonged period of time (2 hours).
Encouraging bad social skills in an educational environment, to me just seems like a bad idea.
Anderson tied social constructivist learning in nicely with social networking: "Each of these pedagogies stress the value of social interaction in motivating, modeling, validating, supporting, challenging and providing new perspectives throughout the learning process. These theories also acknowledge the central role of technologies in supporting human communication and in finding, retrieving and distributing information."
Social networking may turn out to be the next best thing for social constructive learning theories. But I will still believe that MySpace was developed by the Evil League of Evil.
Anderson, T. (2009) Social Networking in Education. A draft paper to STRIDE handbook for The Indira Gandhi National Open University (IGNOU). Retrieved: April 27, 2009, from http://terrya.edublogs.org/2009/04/28/social-networking-chapter/
Duffy, P. (2008) Engaging the YouTube Google-Eyed Generation: Strategies for Using Web 2.0 in Teaching and Learning.The Electronic Journal of e-Learning 6(2) pp 119 - 130. Retrieved January 3, 2009, from http://www.ejel.org/Volume-6/v6-i2/Duffy.pdf
Moore, M.G. (2007). Web 2.0: Does It Really Matter? American Journal of Distance Education, 21(4), 177-183. doi: 10.1080/08923640701595183
Hey Laura,
ReplyDeleteI think this was the most interesting of you Posts.
I agree with your Post. I think that Moore’s thoughts were that technology was a bonus in aiding in education. On the other hand, I do think he thought that some amount of technology was beneficial, but too much was unnecessary and would not aid in learning.
I enjoyed reading your spin on the Blog activity. I do see your side. This assignment was a great way to knock two birds out with one stone. This project did enhance interaction between students at the same time the students learned about topics in the Distance Education- OMDE 603 course. In addition, for the students in the class who had never used blogging, this activity created a new learning experience.
In addition, I feel that I received more education from this blogging activity than I receive from writing a paper. For instance, when you write a paper, one learns from the research and writes their spin on the information. However, one does not get to read other students papers to learn what their thoughts were. On the other hand, with this blogging activity I was able to expand my knowledge and learn from my posts and other peoples’ post, thoughts and comments. I truly believe that one learns better from reading information on research and interaction of other people.
I partially agree and partially disagree with you on your response to Duffy. For the fact that I feel there should be a hybrid of learning tools used. When you said that it is the twitchy students that need the new technology, but I feel that the twitchy students are the new generation. Remember this generation was raised on new changing technologies (internet, WebEx, facebook, my space, instant messenger, etc). So I feel that a teacher would not want to totally change their way of education a student; however, they may want to create an assignment that would stimulate the students who thrive from the internet.
I am firm believer that everyone learns differently. However, back in the day students had to adapt to learn to survive in school. So on one side yes everyone learns differently, but on the other side one can adapt to learn as well.
Thanks,
Britt5
Duffy, P. (2008) Engaging the YouTube Google-Eyed Generation: Strategies for Using Web 2.0 in Teaching and Learning.The Electronic Journal of e-Learning 6(2) pp 119 - 130. Retrieved January 3, 2009, from http://www.ejel.org/Volume-6/v6-i2/Duffy.pdf
Moore, M.G. (2007). Web 2.0: Does It Really Matter? American Journal of Distance Education, 21(4), 177-183. doi: 10.1080/08923640701595183