Cognitivism and Learning Theory

Cognitivism and Learning Theory


Both cognitivism and behaviorism play a role in our classrooms today. The behaviorist theory transcends into a teaching method that is teacher-centered. Perhaps the teacher creates a lesson that includes lecture, notes, demonstrations and modeling. The cognitivist theory is more student-centered, where students actively pursue their own learning. They complete their own research, collaborate with peers, and participate in self-reflection, self-assessment and group discussions. Both of these learning theories, cognitivism and behaviorism provide different approaches for teachers to choose and implement appropriately with their students.

According to Kerr (2007), “Because how else could we have a big change without a theory to justify it and help us think about it?” This thought provoking question invites us to see why learning theories are so imperative for helping teachers to reflect on the effectiveness of their instructional methods. I also think that with the exponential growth of information available on the computer, we are presently living a change in the educational process. Students are able to access information online and participate in blogs, discussions, and wikis. The cognitivist approach to understanding learning where the student is self-directing is evident in distance learning. In the traditional classroom, teachers can implement problem-based learning that would support the cognitivist theory or a teacher can use a more structured design that would help a more needy group of learners.

For me, teaching seems to improve with the more information I can gather. This includes learning as much information about my students, learning as much information about learning theories, learning as many tricks of the trade, and as many technological tools I can integrate into my classroom instruction. Nothing stays stagnant. All learning and interactions should be dynamic and up to date with the changing world around us.
Kapp (2007) summed it up well, when he stated, “Cognitivism doesn’t explain 100% how humans process information and neither does constructivism or behaviorism. What we need is to take the best from each philosophy and use it wisely to create solid educational experiences for our learners. “
References
Kerr, B. (2007, January 1). isms as filter, not blinker Retrieved from http://billkerr2.blogspot.com/2007/01/isms-as-filter-not-blinker.html
Kapp, K. (2007, January 2). Out and about: Discussion on educational schools of thought [Web log post]. Retrieved from http://www.kaplaneduneering.com/kappnotes/index.php/2007/01/out-and-about-discussion-on-educational/

Siemens's Metaphors of Educators

Critique Siemens’s “metaphors of educators.” Which of these metaphors best describes the role you believe an instructor should take in a digital classroom or workplace? Is there a better metaphor to reflect your view of the role of instructors?

Siemens (2008) notes that access to information is steadily increasing as learners choose to embrace technology. The role of the educator and learner is evolving as both are faced to adapt to these changes. Siemens (2008), offers four models or “metaphors of educators” which distinctly express the role of the educator and learner to address these changes.

John Seely Brown (2006) describes learning as “enculturation into a practice.” The most relevant attribute of this model is that student learning is not limited to the expertise of the instructor.
All of the students can learn from each other and their participation and sharing with other class members is imperative for its success. The educator is considered the “master artist” (Siemens, 2008), while the students are developing artists who can create their own original and innovative pieces. In my opinion, this model would work best with content that encourages divergent thought. For example, I might see this theory work best in an English class or an Art class where the learner is invited to gather information and then present an independent project that demonstrates the learning content in an individual way. In a subjective class, such as math or science, the demonstration of mathematical or scientific concepts might not lend itself as well to this model.
Clarence Fisher (n.d.), emphasizes the use of learning networks and building connections to assist students in satisfying objectives for a particular course of study (Siemens, 2008). Instructors would give the students the responsibility to find and make connections, and then evaluate them to be sure there is quality interactions and conceptual understanding. In this technological changing learning environment, students can research, seek and sort out their own information and strive to make connections among their findings. I think this model lends itself to many disciplines. Regardless of the topic, information is readily available, but must be sifted through to determine its reliability and relevance. This video best illustrates this concept
and can be linked here: http://youtu.be/XwM4ieFOotA
An entry on Stephen Downe’s (2007) blog posted his opinion on the meaning of connectivism.
http://halfanhour.blogspot.com/2007/02/what-connectivism-is.html
In this post, he describes the pedagogy of connectivism as a model that seeks to access networks which are characterized as diverse, autonomous, open and connected (2007).

The third model, presented by Curtis Bank (2007), speaks about the educator as the concierge or the person who points the learner into the right direction. Too often, students can get lost or distracted in the quest for knowledge and may need assistance in sorting through what should be the focus. This model includes time for teacher led instruction and student led discoveries. It may be the balance that students need to help guide them.

The fourth model, educator as a curator, presented by Siemens (2008), suggests that educators must have a dual role of experts and guides. The expert must be competent in his field and be able to guide the learner independently to discover and explore their learning. This model makes the most sense to me as an educator. Too often students find discovery and exploration overwhelming and difficult. Instructors should be prepared and patient to anticipate students needs yet direct those who request assistance.

Which of these metaphors best describes the role you believe an instructor should take in a digital classroom or workplace?

The metaphor that best describes the role an instructor should take into the digital classroom is the educator as the curator. In my opinion, the students in today’s society desire to be in the presence of educated and expert people who can assist them and coach them to make effective use of the changing technological opportunities.


References:


Downes, S. (2007, February). Half and Hour. What Connectivism is?
Retrieved from
http://halfanhour.blogspot.com/2007/02/what-connectivism-is.html
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

http://youtu.be/XwM4ieFOotA

Second Life Final Project

Static and Dynamic Technologies

According to Moller (2008), the static end of the continuum is consistent with the learner capturing information via podcasts, videocasts, web pages or any form of written text.  As the instructor responsible for getting information across to our students, we all have some form of static use of technology included in our lesson design.  Moller (2008) argues that between the static and dynamic lays a middle ground that allows the user to analyze, contribute, synthesize, reflect and argue thereby creating new knowledge.  This can be achieved with the use of technological tools such as wikis, blogs, discussion boards or chat spaces.  At this point in my career, I do not use a wiki, blog or discussion board for any of my classes, but I do see its collaborative potential and use in the near future.  Although I don’t use these technological tools, I do strive for analysis, contribution, reflection, synthesis and discussion among my students if they are in cooperative groups, in a class discussion or elaborating on class projects.  The other end of the continuum, according to Moller (2008) is the dynamic use of technology that provides opportunities to explore, think, analyze, create and experiment.  These higher-level learning skills allow students to become less dependent on the instructor and more self-motivated.  It’s always a good day when a student can say: “I figured it out!”  These dynamic technologies that help foster the engagement of our learners to be independent thinkers are exemplified in virtual simulations, gaming, multi-user environments and constructivist’s applications (Moller, 2008).  In a high school math class there are daily struggles with diverse learners just trying to grasp procedural knowledge and practice in 42 minutes each day.  The learning environment in a traditional classroom is not presently conducive for online virtual simulations.  However, in my computer programming class, where each student sits behind their own computer, he or she has ample opportunity to conjecture, manipulate and independently learn at their own pace.  Honestly, I love teaching that class, because my students determine their own learning.  Although they are guided, they make use of gaming, virtual simulations, and live a constructivist approach to learning the programming languages of Java and Visual Basic. 

In order for me to move into the dynamic use of technologies for my math students, I have to think creatively and be willing to let go of the traditional approach I am so accustomed to following.  I don’t want to adopt technologies unless they make a difference in their learning.  So initially, I would probably design a group project that would give students an opportunity to construct knowledge independent of my instruction and capitalizing on the technology I can find that would be appropriate for their use and level.  According to an interesting blog from Discovery Education (2010) wikis “encourage the four C’s (critical thinking, communication, collaboration and creativity) and keep kids motivated to do their work.”  In addition, “they are dynamic entities that take on a life of their own and outlast static reports and displays” (Discovery Education, 2010).   I think the easiest way to immerse in the dynamic end of the continuum is to create a wiki for my class and give my students an ongoing method to collaborate and produce audio, video and images to support their learning. 

References

Discovery Education (March 31, 2010). Web 20.10 Blog –Wikis Retrieved form

http://web2010.discoveryeducation.com/blog/index.cfm/2010/3/31/Web-2010-Blog--Wikis

Moller, L. (2008). Static and dynamic technological tools. (Unpublished paper). Laureate Education, Inc., Baltimore.

Technological Tools and Strategies to Help Engage the Online Learner

There are many technological tools learners are using outside the face-to-face classrooms to complement the educational online learning environment.  Effective teaching strategies centered on communication, content and collaboration are more easily integrated with the use of today’s technology tools. 

Content can be found in many journals, scholarly articles, periodicals, books, websites, blogs, and videos, in online libraries across the Internet. There are many hosted media sharing cites that allow users to post and share their audio and or video presentations.  Students can sign up for scheduled webinars that teach and instruct content of specific nature.  TeacherTube or YouTube provides the opportunity for users to upload video files and Slideshare allows for PowerPoint presentations to be shared among users.

Collaboration is enhanced with the use of wikis, social networking sites, student moderators and problem–based learning projects.  According to Durrington, Berryhill and Swafford (2006), one of the suggested strategies that foster student interactivity is problem-based learning.  Because this is very challenging for both the students and the instructor, both asynchronous and synchronous opportunities are imperative for students to post and discuss their findings.  The advantage to using synchronous method of communication, according to Education Blog (2003), is it provides instant feedback for student’s performance.  The advantage to using asynchronous mode of online education is it gives flexibility of more time for students to work with their members.  The use of collaborative wikis provides a blank slate for students to add and share content, give peer assessments and coordinate decisions on project-based tasks.  Other technological tools that help coordinate collaborative efforts are the use of social networking sites such as Facebook, VideoChat, Skype and Twitter.  Although these sites couple as communication tools, they provide an integral part of the collaboration process.  Lastly, the use of a student moderator helps to motivate students in an online community to build relationships, generate new ideas, and develop pride and ownership in their growth as a group with a designated purpose. 

Communication is fostered by several online technological tools as well as by personal cell phones.  The use of email, texting and or instant messaging allows students to communicate with other students and get feedback with or without sharing it with the rest of the group.  Blogs allow users, both instructors and students to post content and comments on user content which helps taper or expand learning among the users.  The use of voice, video or web conferencing is an exciting way to share ideas and communicate in real time.  Lastly, discussion boards provide a means for students and instructors to share their personal experiences as it relates to the given content.  Instructors can respond to various posts and provoke further discussion on selected ideas. 

References

Durrington, V. A., Berryhill, A., & Swafford, J. (2006). Strategies for enhancing student interactivity in an online environment.  College Teaching, 54(1), 190-193. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

Anderson, T. (Ed.). (2008). The theory and practice of online learning (2nd ed.). Edmonton, AB: Athabasca University Press.

Siemens, G. (2007, September). Podcast. Curatorial Teaching. Retrieved from http://learnonline.wordpress.com/2007/09/20/10-minute-lecture-george-siemens-curatorial-teaching/

Educational Blog  Retrieved from http://www.tangoseduction.com/tag/means-of-communication/

Collaborative Learning Communities

From my own experiences, in a classroom setting, assessment of participation in a collaborative group is evaluated with a well thought out rubric designed to give students and teachers levels of expectations and  criteria for success in a task.  I think that participation in a learning community should be assessed in a similar way.  Students and instructors must have a mutual understanding of the expectations with open lines of communication so that tasks are completed by everyone in the community.  I also think that participation assessment can be achieved by inviting students to assess each other.  No professor can really know everything that occurred in a collaborative community unless the professor is one of the members.  What better way for participation to be monitored than by the students themselves.  According to Siemens (2008), educators and learners can assess each other with a rating scheme.  

Varying levels of skill and knowledge helps broaden the learning by inviting members to share information, insight or suggestions  that would not be gotten without diversity in the group.  I like to think that a rich learning experience is the reward rather than the "mark" assigned at the completion of a task.  Siemens (2008) would agree when he says that students learning is assessed with direct comments and feedback from the communities.  It is fair to say that the traditional grading with numbers or letters does not satisfy assessment in collaborative communities.  According to Swan (2004), "ongoing assessment of student performance is linked to immediate feedback," and she suggests implications for best practice would be to develop learning modules that create opportunities for students to get enrichment or remediation depending on their skill level.  

According to Downes (1998), one of the keys to a successful online community is ownership.  Members are responsible for its growth and development.  "It is a shared and constructed environment, where the members along with organizers play roughly equal roles in content creation" (Downes, 1998).  If a student doesn't want to network or collaborate in a learning community for an online course, members should continue on without that person but try to offer support and persuasion to that  person to get them to participate.  It is the role of the instructor to distinguish a non-participant and make a decision determining consequences.  If the person is not interested in being an active participant in a community, I suggest the removal of the individual from the group.  I have taken students out of a group if I felt they were negatively affecting the outcome of a group.  I have found that group dynamics, lack of interest or motivation are some of the reasons for student removal from a group.  The impact on the assessment would be predetermined by the rubric.  If a task offers students opportunities to  earn points for group participation and a member has been dismissed by an instructor, then that student forfeits those points from the rubric.  The community of learners that remain will be better able to focus on their task.  

References:

Downes, S., (1998).  The Future of online learning.  Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 1(3).  Retrieved from 

http://www.westga.edu/%7Edistance/ojdla/fall1998/downes13.html

Siemens, G. (2008).  Assessment of collaborative learning. (Vodcast). Principles of

        Distance Education DVD produced by Laureate Education, Inc., Baltimore.

Siemens, G.  (2008). Learning communities. (Vodcast). Principles of Distance Education DVD produced by Laureate Education, Inc., Baltimore.

Swan, K. (2004). Relationships between interactions and learning environments.  The Sloan Consortium. 

        Retrieved from  http://sloanconsortium.org/publications/books/pdf/interactions.pdf

Video Storyboard: Impact of Second Life on learning outcomes, student engagement, motivation and collaboration

Storyboard for video presentation.

Topic: Discuss the impact of Second Life on learning outcomes, student engagement, motivation and collaboration.

Points to address:                           Details Included:                      Implementation:

Key aspects	1.     Brief History and background information 2.     Description to explain concept	1.     Scrolling  Document similar to credits 2.     Sample snapshot from YouTube.com
Comparison to other social media	1. Demonstrate 3 major differences	1.  Live video clip of facebook,and email  gaming and then phase in attributes of an avatar
Why does it attract users in business, education and independent entrepeneurs?	1.     Demonstrate how it holds potential in the business world with 5 distinct incentives 2.     Demonstrate how using Second Life can offer a flexible learning environment for both learner and teacher.	1.     Live video clip showing each of the 5 incentives from the real world 2.     Live video clip depicting pedagogical learning with  graphical designs
Best Practices	1.  Explain and demonstrate how the authentic application of Second Life was used to engage participants in 3D geometry	1. Live video clip showing concept of fractal design by hand but then cut to more complex images found on web.               2.  demonstrate the power of Linden scripting to create 3D fractals verses 2D found on the web.
Student learning outcomes, engagement, motivation and collaboration	1.     Demonstrate how using Second Life offers : a.     enriched learning experiences b.     strong social presence c.      multi-level interaction d.     promotion of constructivism e.     enriched use of multimedia resources	1.     Live video clip showing students engaged in virtual world assignment 2.     Show quick clips of 2 universities that have embraced this technology.
Need for improvement, and  possibilities for the future	Discuss challenges and future implications	1. Voice in background with list of challenges and future implications on screen.