My Networking Connections: Module 4

(Click on the Mindmap for a link to the Website for a better view.)

What an amazing exercise! Everything, everyone is connected. As the connectivists suggest, finding patterns among all the the various relationships is a rather daunting task, but the endeavor reveals depths of associations never before realized. One does not merely communicate with another, one communicates with networks and networks communicate with one. This holds powerful implications about the way we now learn. It indicates that how we learn is affecting what we learn and who or what we learn it from. Learning no longer follows a linear path; it is decreasingly a top down, directed activity (Siemens, 2004). Instead learning is multi-directional, with unexpected turns, discoveries, and associations around every twist in the road.

Among the myriad of digital tools at our disposal, the Internet, e-mail, and the phone remain unsurpassed in connectivity importance. Not too long ago the teacher, the dictionary, the encyclopedia, the pencil and paper, and the text would have topped my list of valuable education tools. These would have been the center of inquiry. But now, it is a little disconcerting to ponder, but the 'middle man' in education seems to be me. I am at the center of my own learning. Inquiry resides in me; discovery resides in the Internet; and support resides in my network connections.


The following site is a blog dedicated to connectivism. It is extensive and well-commented upon.
http://www.connectivism.ca/


You may want to see Stephen Downes blog on Connectivism. Very conversational and not too wordy. In addition to his own comments, he provides links to George Siemens.
http://www.downes.ca/cgi-bin/page.cgi?journal=Connectivism%20Blog


Reference:

Siemens, G. (2004). Connectivism: A learning theory for the digital age. Retrieved from http://elearnspace.org/Articles/connectivism.htm

Module 3 - How Important is Collaborating?

People have an amazing capacity to communicate, cooperate, and collaborate. Although these skills are not unique to humans –- ants cooperate by adopting different jobs to support the colony, birds sound an alarm when danger is near, and whales collaborate in order to round up dinner (watch it below) –- unlike the animal kingdom, we no longer have to collaborate in order to survive. Our advanced weapons mean that we no longer must hunt in packs; our cultivators, tractors, and combines have increased food production and reduced the number cooperative farmers; and we no longer need thousands of workers to build a pyramid.

Or, do we? Perhaps collaboration is fundamental to our survival. Perhaps we will lose part of what if means to be human if we cease to effectively communicate, cooperate, and collaborate.

A recent study from PNAS, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, found that emotions outlast the memories that made them. (You can find the story here: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=125869707)
It was determined that feelings linger for people who no longer have the capacity to retain memories. For example, an Alzheimer’s patient will not remember a visit from a family member, but they will retain the sense of joy long after the visit is over. This study implies that the value of life does not solely reside in our cognition, but instead, the quality of life is dependent on human contact.

All of this seems to have deep implications for the future of collaborations and learning theory. Rheingold (2005) proposed that an innate attribute of the human condition is interaction and cooperation. He stated that collaboration is vital to economics, to who we are, and to how we think. When this is related to learning theory, behaviorism, concerned with changing observable behaviors through a stimulus and response mechanism, ignores the affective domain. Cognitivism, concerned with the nature of knowledge at different stages of development, represents an active approach to learning, but is deeply concerned with memory, not emotions. Constructivism, however, promotes a problem-based learning approach to include collaborative activities. Learning is not purely objective, it is also socially constructed through interactions with the environment and other learners. It addresses the cognitive domain, but it also touches the affective domain, so vital to the human condition. Through constructivism, the learner employs all tools necessary to build understanding. Technology is arguably the most powerful tool at a student’s disposal. Technology plows fields, engineers structures, empowers learners, and provides the connection across generations and across cultures, to insure our very survival.

You may view Rheingold’s video here: http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/howard_rheingold_on_collaboration.html

You may also wish to read the following blog by Isabel Gabalda. She posts a professional forum about constructivist psychology to include peer-reviewed articles: http://jconstructpsych.blogspot.com/

Resource:

Rheingold, H. (2005). Howard Rheingold on collaboration. Retrieved April 7, 2010 from http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/howard_rheingold_on_collaboration.html

Module 2 - Learning Theory Reflections

John F. Kennedy is quoted as saying, “Man is still the most extraordinary computer of all.” Sydney J. Harris said, “The danger is not that computers will begin to think like men, but that men will begin to think like computers”.

These two opinions about technology and cognition is also represented by Bill Kerr (2007) in his blog at http://billkerr2.blogspot.com/2007/01/isms-as-filter-not-blinker.html

Mr. Kerr, in response to Stephen Downes’ blog wrote, “If machines evolve further and start displaying visceral emotions then how should we deal with that? An alternative into dehumanising humans would be to humanise machines. At that point behaviourism might make a come back.” Kerr continued by stating, “…the architecture of the mind is very different from that of a computer.” Regardless of one’s position on behavioral theory versus cognitive theory, surely we can agree that we still don’t truly understand how we learn. Further, to discard one theory in favor of the other seems premature given our infancy into understanding cognition. Karl Kapp (2007) supports this position in his blog at http://karlkapp.blogspot.com/2007/01/out-and-about-discussion-on-educational.html Mr. Kapp said, “What we need to take the best from each philosophy and use it wisely to create solid educational experiences for our learners.”

Perhaps the most remarkable aspect of the blog discussions among Bill Kerr, Stephen Downes, and Karl Kapp is the undeniable similarities when compared to the online discussions among graduate students at Walden University. Although there are subtle (and not so subtle) differences and disagreements about the value of behaviorism versus cognitivisim as relevant theories in learning, the themes remain constant. For example, Marci Vining, a Walden student, stated, “Educators should not adhere to one view of learning.” Cassandra Moore concurred when she said that the learning process “…cannot be explained by one theory.” Rebecca Raichel also stated, “I don’t think it has to be one or the other.” As Kerr (2007) said, “It seems to me that each _ism is offering something useful without any of them being complete or stand alone in their own right.” I agree -- for now.

On a personal note: For years I have delighted in the creative floor plans my middle school students design in response to an introduction to architecture unit. After assessing their drawings for years it is difficult to deny Piaget’s stages of cognitive development. I find it interesting to view students who remain Preoperational as they continue to draw doors from the front view as compared to the Concrete Operational students who have progressed to correctly drawing doors from the top view.

If you are interested in reading more Piaget’s stages of cognitive development then please refer to the following discussion posted by Dr. C. George Boeree. He includes additional examples from each stage. http://webspace.ship.edu/cgboer/genpsypiaget.html

Also, you may want to visit Stephen Downes on the Web. Since I referenced him within Kapp’s and Kerr’s blogs, I thought it appropriate to include his website. This site will allow you to access his blog, Facebook, Flickr, and Twitter sites. http://www.downes.ca/

Kapp, K. (2007). Out and about: Discussion on educational schools of thought. Retrieved March 27, 2010 from http://karlkapp.blogspot.com/2007/01/out-and-about-discussion-on-educational.html

Kerr, B. (2007). _isms as filter, not blinker. Retrieved March 27, 2010 from http://billkerr2.blogspot.com/2007/01/isms-as-filter-not-blinker.html

Module 1 Learning Theory

Learning theory is the educational model that unites the cognitive and affective domains for the purpose of explaining how we learn and enhancing what we learn.

Please, forgive my personal reflections regarding how people learn best, but after all, learning theory and teaching theory is nothing, if not a deeply personal adventure.

I come from a long line of strong-willed (and strongly-opinionated) educators. With a room full of teachers, professors, journalists, counselors, and principals, our discussions often center on educational theories. For example, my mother, once an ETS field agent and the only white counselor in a pre-integration black high school, recounts meeting B.F. Skinner in a ‘60s workshop. My sister wants to hear ideas concerning her sponsorship a dozen South Korean university exchange students. I am interested in discussing the flattening of the world after going to hear Thomas Friedman speak. Educational theory is so endemic to our lives that my entire family actually “Piagets” containers when storing leftovers; we actually use the word, “Piaget”! We literally get into friendly competitions to see who selects the most accurately-sized storage containers for food – not too big, not too small; the spaghetti must fit just right with the lid on. We literally try to out Piaget each other! Crazy, huh?

That said, describing a specific learning theory as superior to another actually makes me uncomfortable. Learning theories evolve as our understanding of how we think evolves. They build upon the ever-expanding knowledge of how we teach and learn. While one theory might seem to adequately explain certain behaviors, it might be rather impotent in explaining another. The mind is an incredibly complex machine and our educational theories are mere jabs at addressing its complexity. Educational Technology adds yet another layer of issues to the challenge.

I believe that people experience learning differently. One model does not work for all people, at all stages of development, in all situations, and with all levels of knowledge. For example, when I teach my middle school students about dangerous power tools, I must remind them that in this case, learning through experience or trial and error is not an option. They may not test my authority as they would test a bench for wet paint or test an iron for heat. The behaviorism theory is not a safe method of interaction with the environment; there is no winning a game against a band saw blade; the rewards can be lethal.

Behaviorism attempts to explain the operant conditioning of an organism as it relates to the environment through stimulus and reward cues (Driscoll 2005). In other words, behaviors can be strengthened or weakened through reinforcement. While I can support some applications of behaviorism, far too many teachers abuse this theory in an attempt at classroom management. Do this for a sticker and do that for some candy. Does this not smack of dog training? Sit! Speak! Here’s a doggie biscuit! Although behaviorism is the telegraph of communication technologies, it seems to be experiencing a tentative rebirth in the infancy of online education. As learning theories evolve, we seem to find new applications for old theories. At one time we knew the world to be flat. For all our progress, many believe that it is flat once again - just read Thomas Friedman (2005).

Driscoll, M. P. (2005). Psychology of learning for instruction (3rd ed.). Boston: Pearson Education, Inc.

Friedman, T. (2005). The world is flat. NY: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

You may wish to visit the following website for a categorized explanation of different learning theories: http://www.learning-theories.com/

Additionally, you might want to visit the following blog concerning connectivism:

http://www.connectivism.ca/blog/learning-theories/

Also, you may want to listen to Thomas Freidman yourself: http://mitworld.mit.edu/video/266

Online Connections Module 6

May I suggest the following Websites for further information regarding asynchronous and synchronous online interactions?

The first site is a blog with the goal to encourage open discussions related to learning technology. It provides an open forum in support of teachers in a collaborative and connectivism venue. Is is an extensive site with many arms and links. Also, embedded is a number os YouTube videos. By the way, I understand that "chalkie" is an affectionate Aussie term for teacher. http://www.digitalchalkie.com/

The second site is a blog by Clive Shepherd in the UK. According to his personal profile, he is a consultant interested in technology-assisted learning and communication. He has been blogging on the topic since 2005 so there is a good deal of historical perspective content. http://clive-shepherd.blogspot.com/

The third recommended site includes very brief postings with links to other sites. The authors bring up a topic, trend, or breaking technology concerning e-learning and then link the post to the evidence provided elsewhere. It represents a concise, rather than verbose, way of bringing information to interested parties. http://www.elearnspace.org/blog/

Elements of Distance Education Video

This is my video that I placed on YouTube as required for the Elements of Distance Education class at Walden University. The topic of the video is Asynchronous Versus Synchronous Interactions.

Static/Dynamic Continuum Reflection - Module 5

This discussions refers to the Mind Map posted below:

Static technologies are considered relatively passive media. The learner receives information and then may, or may not formulate a response based on the message received. Dynamic technologies, on the other hand, require action on the part of the learner. They extend participation to involvement. Further, they demand higher-order responses. Dynamic technologies require the learner to become a part of the process, not a mere observer.

Many innovative educators are rapidly embracing dynamic technologies, while many others cling to the familiar static innovations. Regarding my own leanings on the static/dynamic continuum, I tend to try and determine the best, most effective tool for the job. If the goals and outcomes can be achieved using static technologies, then employ them. If, however, the activity would be better served through dynamic means, then by all means forge ahead. I do not view the continuum as an either/or proposition; instead I believe that educators should integrate the various media whenever and wherever appropriate.

One note: I found the Static Collaboration section the most troublesome. By definition, the word 'collaboration' calls to mind a dynamic process. Static Collaboration seems rather oxymoronic!

Blog Connections:

The Dynamic Solutions Group established a blog to assist in servicing and maintaining hardware and software systems. The author identifies technology problems and poses solutions at

http://www.dsolutionsgroup.com/blog/

In her blog, Kathy Schrock has compiled a list of popular and controversial blogs associated with educational technology. Some of the sites are rather interesting; I enjoyed "Moving at the Speed of Creativity" among others. Let me know what you think.

http://kathyschrock.net/edtechblogs.htm

I discovered this video posted on YouTube that directly addresses the future of dynamic technologies through the eyes of children. It is remarkable. Please watch it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aWbVogqxGrs