Learning in a Digital World

           
    Module:  6 Blog        Cecil Mittoo                                                Learning in a Digital 

My Experience with Face to Face Learning and Online Learning

Face to Face (Traditional Schools) from kindergarten to the university level have made their impact on the social system. I have been exposed to all types of learning theories and technology. My technical high school learning theories were separate for engineering training as for academics. The term “technical” was descriptive of “situated cognition.” But this is a development of behaviorism from a practical sense of training from a model (product) to make miniature tools and learn engineering concepts. Kirshner et al. purports “proponents of situated cognition believe that it represses a shift in thinking about learning and instruction that is at least as profound, philosophically and methodological, as with the shift to cognitivism from behaviorism” (Driscoll, p. 174). Cognitive development was an extended learning concept to develop an engineering mind from concept to design, development and productivity. Technical training carried both pedagogical learning and situated learning. The pedagogical learning was total in school. The situated learning was assigned to industries within the engineering discipline of production, manufacturing and assembling. Situated learning was being apprentice-sized to reinforce learning from experience. For cognitive apprenticeship, Brown et al. (1989) in Driscoll (2005) says “One means by which students can participate in a community of practice is through cognitive apprenticeship” (p.174). This experiential learning is a miniature model of internship that is practiced on a larger scale in institutions that are polytechnic models of engineering training. My brother who was studying “Land Surveying” was assigned to a field Service Company for two years after one year pedagogical study on campus. The field experience was typical work environment that impacts daily “start-time” typical to the work industry. There was a notable experiential learning for me which was social and emotional control” This was typical to the culture of my learning institution and students were monitored and counseled for idealism in behavior as a part and parcel of total development for integrating into society accepted norms.

My online learning experience is relatively new. This began one year ago when I began the Ed. S. Educational Technology Program. To date I believe the Anagogical learning theory is under construction. I have seen and experience construct of knowledge through networking that George Siemens refers to as Connectivism learning theory for the digital age. According to Siemens (2004) in Anderson (2010) “connectivist theory is for the digital age where individuals learn and work in a network environment” (p.34). The instructor creates the syllabus and sets the parameter for doing the work. This is inclusive of Web sites, information, reflection, students researching and selecting content and so on. But unlike the Face to Face learning, the instructor is not available in most collaborative setting to add his/her intellectual contribution to active group learning. In-spite of how technology oriented online learning is purported to be, where there is technology interaction and the belief that learning community exist. The instructor is an indispensable cog and is the director, coordinator and inspiratory for knowledge coordination. The instructor remains the legend of partial knowledge within a context. I have observed discussion that is mediocrity in quality. Some community members do not respond to areas that need critical thinking and clarification. This might be due to lack of personal and social comfort or efficacious feeling or just being unprepared. The instructor is not able to attend to all needs of the forum. Face to Face learning problems are comprehensively addressed as active participation is formal and informal. I believe there is a sense of discipline and commitment that is lacking in online learning. One has to be dedicated, and the quality of learning is very personal to one’s discipline. This is true for the Face to Face challenge. A social resolve is easier accomplished for Face to Face learning. I find that I absolutely own my knowledge from my dedication and participation. Currently, the core belief of learning community building is in need of improvement. Most of this is left to social independence. Because of the responsibilities that engulf participants, they are finding it difficult to fit in synchronous settings that are being dictated as a course requirement. Community building is not a short term creation and online learning suffers this dilemma.

Better participation is needed for online learning groups. Rules and routines have to be established from the perspective of the host institution. While my online class is comprised of adults, the assumption or responsibility and sacrifice for networking in knowledge construct is a myth. There are benefits that are in research, eJournal use, asynchronous group participation and technology interaction but the synchronous meetings and agenda formulation with respect to availability of members and dedication through social influence continues to be a challenge. There is a problem that exists within a social context for online learning that is acknowledged by concerned educational technologist. Campbell and five other professors at Kennesaw State Coles College of Business are cognizant of the problem. Diamond (2010) postulates that Campbell notes “researchers are now looking at the students' personality traits and experiences in online courses to determine how to motivate students and what types of students are most likely to succeed.”

References:

Anderson, T. (2010). The Theory and Practice of Online Learning. (2nd Edition) .AU Press, Athabasca University at aupress@athabascau.ca

Diamond, L (2010). The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. Professors study how to improve online learning. Retrieved from: http://www.ajc.com/news/cobb/professors-study-how-to-646153.html

Driscoll, M.  (2005). Psychology of Learning for Instruction (3rd ed.)  Pearson Publisher, New York   

My responses to URLs are planning for:

(a) Jennifer Joseph @ http://jenanp.blogspot.com/

(b) Valenta Wade @ http://raivynsmom.wordpress.com/   (No posting since 12: mid-night-05/23/12)

(c) http://snowkween.blogspot.com/2012/05/module-6-learning-in-digital-world-as.html#comment-form          (Tracy Snow)

                                                                                                                 

 

New Technologies

Module 5 Blog                                                             

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><> <><><><><><><><><><><><><><> <><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

Motivation Aligned Model

Self-Efficacy in Experimenting with New Technologies

Feeling efficacious about one’s self might not be related to technology. We’ve been getting along fine at our jobs, and our productivity was never questioned. How can anyone be affected with not knowing new technology and its application on the job? The social profession of teaching is being transformed to access and use technology in all areas of learning. I am not able to know how a teacher feels if they are naive towards technology use on the job. This is because I am technology literate and it becomes a part of me too simple to understand other's challenge. I’m called upon for satisfying all technology needs. And, what I have never done before I am still able to solve it, because I can’t allow my efficacious technology feeling to be marred. But I have come across teachers who are not worried about technology because I’m in their reach. If they begin to feel guilty of technology efficacy it might be as a result of students, request, administrator’s decision or if I intervene in their classroom requirements.

Three years ago I was working at one middle school that teachers were not exceptionally desirous to work with technology. At the beginning of the school year in September, the principal asked me to check to see that all computers (PCs) in all classrooms were in working condition and connected to the internet. One class room that I checked had only one PC which I checked and put in working condition. The homeroom teacher taught two subjects, Music and Mathematics. The classroom was neatly organized with charts and a back table that had space for two PCs. I asked the teacher (Ms. "P" for this blog) if she would like to have two additional computers as there was enough space for layout and installation. Ms. P in a very nice way refused the offer. I was perplexed and could not understand why any teacher would refuse such offer.

About two weeks later one of Ms. P’s student came to the technology lab. The student asked if she could use a computer in the lab to research a popular lyric and the original composer. I asked the student why this was not done in Ms. P’s class. The student told me that Ms. P’s computer was not working. I questioned some more and found out that Ms. P not only did not allow her student to use the computer, but she (Ms. P) was not using her computer. Revelation of this information caused me to check in with Ms. P. There was not a problem with her computer. Ms. P’s attitude changed. She began to use her charts to block her classroom window and also locked her door.

I asked the principal to allow me to run a professional development program over a one month period every Tuesday afternoon afterschool for two hours for beginners. Ten teachers registered including Ms. P. The focus of that technology training was to bridge the appreciative domain for technology. The process was to get teachers to become motivated so that any frustration and misconception about technology integration in the classroom would be flipped with positive thinking of personal development (efficacy). My training plan was not developed in specific to the adapting of John Keller’s ARCS Model. But in parts and parcel as a reflection on the success of the training, saw a fit with Keller’s ARCS Model. The behavior of the learned faculty had improved, and this was as a result of how the group functioned during training. Their performance was as a result of their motivation, participation and effort.

Attention: Teachers participation was drawn with understanding and sharing in discussion, the use and function of the parts of the computer. Teachers were able to express among themselves with humor how they escaped their computer savvy students. They did this by pretending that their computer was too slow or needed fixing. Teachers participation in classroom activities, denial and truth, and expectations sparked debates. There was knowledge sharing and understanding of how they have wished to be able to use the computer to make their lesson plans more interesting, current and relevant. In essence teachers began to appreciate the affective domain of opportunity to learn. The training did not start without teachers throwing metaphors of blame against me. I was setting up computers in their classrooms without even knowing their low technology efficacy. I did not allow that to mar my purpose and posed a question of inquiry on how technology can assist individual instruction. Teachers were now having differences of opinion, and their conflict allowed me to rise as the mediator for variability in choices.

Relevance: Teachers began to appreciate the way technology was able to transform their class. This happened with accessing and expanding current information. I allowed teachers to explore choices that include application of technology for lesson inclusive of streaming video, software, academic learning programs, and videos from community educational resources. I gave several URL sites relevant to their subject areas to which they could match their needs. Teachers were anxious to model their choice of program that they believed would relate to objectives, content and context. The essential features of alignment of technology and unit titles were concrete evidence of technology adaptation to their classroom needs. Teachers sought to see how low end technology of the past are parallel to present development and what might satisfy future needs. Enhanced features of presentations included the use of hyperlinks to access information during presentation. The mode of inquiry was expanded in teacher groups by subjects and was overlapped by multi-subjects being taught.

Confidence: On covering two of the four planned classes, (1 each week) teachers began to express their views of how their lessons had begun to impact their students’ performance. Teachers in training had more than 10 years’ experience in the classroom. This told me that they had a passion for teaching, and if they were to keep their knowledge current and relevant then technology was not a choice but an essential tool. I threw out the question of what will be the prerequisite for teachers entering the system. All 10 teachers agreed that new teachers will have to be qualified with technology on two or three levels of application. This included satisfying personal needs, content discovery, and criteria for helping students to interact with technology. Required information that presented difficulty in finding for content development within a context was no longer a challenge. Accessing information via universal resource locators (URL) was opening a new frontier of information. Teachers were collaborating sharing lessons through their social network with each other. I was able to set up a Wiki page for the school and teachers began to create their homework page that students would access. My role expanded into teaching students how to set up and access their class Wiki. Success was the major result for teachers and their class using technology to enhance learning for all.

Satisfaction: By the end of the fourth class the participating faculty had begun to interact in formulating an inquiry plan. This was for working with the lowest 1/3 performers. this was to improve their writing skills using the computer. Teachers’ expectations were raised above the norm, and they saw positive outcomes of their efforts in the student’s performance. In consultation with the school administrators, I suggested that teachers should be recognized for their participation in training and also to motivate their expectations for classroom application. This lead to presenting teachers with a technology participating certification from the school’s principal. Ms. P had changed her attitude technology and endorsed an open door access. This allowed teachers to see how she was integrating technology, also using an interactive smart board with her class. I was now able to give Ms. P two Personal Computers that were set used a mini research center for math and music. Teachers had stop alienated me and were now willing to share their concerns. I was able to reach out to not just 10 but all faculty in introducing new technology resources. Additionally I taught teachers how to fix common technology glitches during presentations and setups.

I have seen where the ARCS model is a reflection of social Emotional and motivational Theories. Behavioral performance of hands on training can accelerate cognitive development. Motivation from the trainer’s perspective is a worthwhile gesture to spark performance of insight and creativity. Teachers’ possess an internal pride to hide their uncertainty regarding technology. This might be due to unfamiliarity with the school technology person or due to uncertainty of how low technology efficacy will affect their performance on the job. Cherry (2012) espouses Albert Bandura self-efficacy is “The belief in one’s capabilities to organize and execute the courses of action required to manage prospective situations” (1995, p. 2). Erlbaum (1992) elicits "Efficacy beliefs influence how people feel, think, motivate themselves and behave” (p.118). Bandura (1986) asserts” Motivation, performance, and feelings of frustration associated with repeated failures determine affect and behavior relations." The reality is for educational technologists to interact with their faculty and seek to prevent the “recurring decimal” of low esteem and demised self-efficacy brought on by frustration with technology uncertainties.

References:

 Bonnie J. Shellnut, B. J. (1998). John Keller A Motivating Influence in the Field of Instructional Systems Design. Retrieved from: http://www.arcsmodel.com/pdf/Biographical%20Information.pdf

Cherry, K. (2012). About.com Psychology. What Is Self-Efficacy? Retrieved from: http://psychology.about.com/od/theoriesofpersonality/a/self_efficacy.htm

Erlbaum, L. associates Inc. (1993). Perceived Self-Efficacy in Development and Function. Educational Psychologists 28(2), 117-148. (Albert Bandura, Stanford University). Retrieved from: http://www.centerforefficacyandresiliency.org/assets/docs/Perceived%20Self-Efficacy%20in%20Cognitive%20Development%20and%20Functioning.pdf

Learning-Theories.com (2012). ARCS Model of Motivational Design (Keller). Retrieved from: http://www.learning-theories.com/kellers-arcs-model-of-motivational-design.html

Pending two URLs response are:

(a)    http://michellenotes.blogspot.com/
(b) http://ed4teachers.blgspot.com//     (Having problems initating)

(c) http://rashidabrown.wordpress.com/    (Alternative responding URL)