Nearing the end of module one

There certainly has been a lot of discussion on the three learning theories throughout this module. It certainly prompted much thought as to my approach in the classroom. I have concluded that successful teaching and in turn learning must incorporate all three theories. Learning is a process that needs a solid foundation and the rest will follow. After all, one cannot build a house from the roof down.

Behaviorism: Sites of interest:

Behaviorism: Sites of interest

http://www.math.umt.edu/TMME/vol1no2/TMMEv1n2brev2.pdf

https://www.msu.Edit Postsedu/~purcelll/behaviorism%20theory.htm

Personal Reflection : Learning theory approaches and teaching methods & Appendix 1: Some Learning Theory Background

Learning theory approaches and teaching methods by HashemFardanesh

The article outlines researchers, Shuell, Rumelhart & Normaand, Farnham-Diggorys descriptors of meaningful learning, each very similar in theory. The common theme is that learning must be meaningful; learning does not naturally occur overnight and meaningful learning makes connections from knowledge already acquired. My son is in Grade 1 and just embarking upon the world of reading. I cannot expect him to pick up a book and begin to read if he has not yet established a solid base in phonics. Once that is in place then I can expect to see him make connections and begin to start reading on his own. I have always had an issue with students getting placed in the next grade if they have not fulfilled the requirements for the previous grade. How can we expect a child to function in a math class where the lesson focuses on division if they cannot add or multiply? Learning is progressive process, and successful learning incorporates a skillful combination of learning theories, which in turn leads to effective learning.

Students must have a solid base of knowledge before they can move into cognitive and constructivist learning, if not learning will be meaningless.

Appendix 1: Some Learning Theory Background

Upon reflecting on the types of learning as outlined according to Kearsley, it is evident that effective teaching incorporates a combination of all of these in one form or another. As teachers we have all experienced the moment of realization that our approach to a topic just isn’t doing it and we are left to reevaluate our approach next time around. There is also that moment when you see a flicker of light come on for students while you are engaged in the teaching process. I’m sure many of you will agree that we do not reach all students using the same methods, therefore we must design lessons using a variety of techniques and strategies.

Objectivism and Subjectivism

Objectivism and Subjectivism

Reading: Pratt, D.D. (1997). Indicators of Commitment (pp. 22-25). Malabar, Florida: Krieger Publishing.

Questions for reflection:

1. What are the defining characteristics of the two epistemological traditions?

2. What do you think some of the implications of each tradition would be for the design of instruction?

1. Objectivism

Objectivism presents the facts in a literal manner , sees knowledge existing independently of their knowing and theory exists separately from experience. Teachers are experts in their fields and must present information in a very objective manner free from their own experiences, beliefs and opinions.

Subjectivism

Subjectivism the opposite of objectivism sees knowledge as being based on what an individual already knows or has experienced. Knowledge is seen as dependent on the ones perceptions and understanding of the world and impose meaning to fit their existing knowledge and expeiences.

2. Personal Reflection: Effective teaching involves a combination of approaches; as educators outcomes, course objectives, CRT Exams and common exams dictate us. As a result, there is a vast amount of information that must be covered in a very limited amount to time. In certain situations my approach has to be objective in nature, however I do try to find creative ways to subjectively approach certain topics. In my science class for example I just finished teaching about fresh water vs. salt water. I had to give the notes using an objective method however when I take them to the lab to participate in a salinity lab the learning becomes subjective. Students then are given the opportunity to discover and interpret information for themselves.

Educational Technology: Archetypes, Paradigms, and Models

Archetypes, Paradigms, and Models

My introduction to CBU 535 begins by reading Davies 1978 article entitled Educational Technology: Archetypes, Paradigms, and Models. My discussion will revolve around the questions provided for discussion.

1. What is the difference between an archetype, a paradigm, and a model?

An archetype is a perspective given by one when engaged in inquiry. A paradigm provides the framework for concrete conceptualisation of theory, is measurable by a qualitative means, and provides definitions, statements, and interrelationships between the statements. A model is measurable through quantitative means; provides specific, detailed representation of reality.

2. What are the key characteristics of Davies’ three educational technologies: One, Two, and Three?

Technology One is described as a ‘hardware’ approach; uses available technology mechanisms to deliver information, thus increasing the size of a population (audience) that can receive information at a given time. On a personal note, just because an institution possesses the latest technology, does not mean the quality of learning will be enhanced. I am a firm believer that technology should not be used for technology sake but must be used to enhance the learning, taking place.

Technology Two is described as a ‘software approach’ stressing how additional learning aids can benefit learning. Technology is seen as a method to present the information and the software is instrumental in assisting teachers to enhance their presentations that will in turn enhance learning.

Technology Three combines the ‘hardware’ and ‘software’ approaches of Technology One and Two. Technology Three, the most practical in my opinion, applies system analysis concepts to education. The hardware and the software are used in conjunction with each other to foster new learning experiences.

3. What are the key characteristics of the audio-visual, the engineering and the problem-solving archetypes of educational technology?

The Audio-visual archetype was developed in the 1930’s. Audio-visual ‘hardware’ adds extra appeal to classroom presentations by providing audio and visual value to a given lesson. Audiovisual equipment has certainly evolved in the past number of years; LCD projectors replace the overhead projectors and Smart Boards are beginning to replace the chalkboards and even in some cases the computer labs.

The Engineering archetype influenced by B.F. Skinners work on operant conditioning of the 60’s. Behaviourist technology is applied to both teaching and learning. The Engineering archetype looks at the underlying assumptions of how technology fits the paradigm and what constitutes the most effective teaching and learning.

The Problem-Solving archetype adopted around 1973-74 is seen as an alternative way of seeing. It incorporates a variety of skills and leaves learning to discovery and problem solving while the learner applies skills already acquired to find answers.

4. What archetype, paradigm and model of educational technology do you think most of your teaching would fall into?

Definitely audio-visual, today’s classrooms are filled with diverse learners, each possessing various strengths and weaknesses. Being able to provide a variety of audio-visual stimulation, I am better able to meet many of the learning styles in my classroom. Of course the type of information I am presenting influences my approach. Often I will teach a concept using straight lecture and notes to realise that my teaching would be more effective if I provided additional audio or visual stimulation. If I feel I am not reaching my audience, I will re-evaluate my approach and look to another more effective method of delivery often involving audio and visual stimuli.

5. Davies wrote his article in 1978, over 20 years ago. Is it still relevant to the thinking of using technology in teaching and learning today? Why or why not?

Davies article is certainly relevant to today’s views of using technology in teaching and learning today. Since 1978 technology growth has shown continuos growth however learning theory has been slower to evolve and find its way in to our more traditional classrooms. There has certainly been a shift from teacher centered classrooms to more student centered approaches to learning

Learning Theories

All is well in theory, but we must be cautious not to assume that we can run a classroom solely with a constructivist theme. The ideal classroom would have every student thinking for him or herself and considering ideas from their individual unique perspectives. Unfortunately this is not the case, but in our striving to do so we can apply the learning theories to our individual situations. In some instances, students come to the classroom with all the background knowledge to build on the lesson of the day, whereas others come with very little knowledge and we must start from the ground and attempt to work our way up. The average classroom comes well equipped with various abilities and learning styles all requiring special accommodations to ensure learner success. Mergel (1998) suggests the use of a realistic model, which combines both objective and constructive theories.

Mergel, B. (1998). Instructional Design & Learning Theory. Retrieved. Sept 10,2008 from (http://www.usask.ca/education/coursework/802papers/mergel/brenda.htm

Welcome to my Blog

Hello and Welcome
This blog will be used as a forum to express my thoughts, feelings, queries and discoveries for the duration of CBU course 535; Application of Learning Theory in Education Multimedia Design, with instructor Diane Janes.