Bridging Learning Theory, Instruction, and Technology Reflection: Final Blog Posting

At the beginning of this course one classroom trait I discussed in my Personal Theory of Learning just how important it is to provide students with choices in order to keep them motivated and engaged in learning. Since then I have learned that the 21^st century learners of today also require more student controlled instruction whether it be having students work together collaboratively, having them take advantage of technology as learning tools, or a combination of the two. The learning theories we were exposed to all contained situations where students maintained control of group activities or the technology tools supplied to them during the particular activities. Also when learning more about the several learning theories in this course I was able to perceive that while it is still very important students to have choices they also need more student-centered and collaborative instruction integrating technology while using a multi-sensory approach for the brain absorb new information (Wolfe, 2009). This is crucial because we all learn differently where connections are unique between each individual (Lever-Duffy & McDonald, 2008). Thus, when students are the center of our instruction and when they have more control of learning tools instruction becomes more meaningful and engaging. Additionally, they are able connect with, use critical thinking skills, construct artifacts, and demonstrate a deeper meaning of material. Technology tools, when used properly, better prepare our students for their future to work collaboratively with others in our rapidly growing global networking society (Seimens, 2009).

Upon reflection of my Personal theory of learning I recognized one modification I need to address would be to switch my focus on implementing the use of technology more as a learning tool for my students rather than an instructional tool to assist in the learning process. Dr. Orey had mentioned that a main goal found in all learning theories is to design environments in our classroom where our students become active learners (Orey, 2009). He was also able to demonstrate examples of how to implement technology as a learning tool rather than an instructional tool. When learning about the differences between these two types of instructional approaches I found when integrating the technology I was using it in a more teacher-centered instructional tool where I had control, which is not beneficial to my students academic achievement (Orey, 2009). However, the more desired learning tool method would be to create an environment where students become active participants throughout the entire lesson because they hold control of the learning experience.

Personally, the quote “Tell me and I will forget. Show me, and I may remember. Involve me, and I will understand” by Confucius proved to be a very insightful and powerful idea for me on just how students learn (Orey, 2001). I believe students involvement through hands-on activities using multiple intelligences is crucial for students to illustrate a deeper understanding of content. This year I plan to adjust my instructional practice by implementing more hands-on activities and using technology more as a learning tool. I can achieve this goal by developing lesson plans integrating technology by using concept mapping, graphic organizers, spreadsheets, and multi-media programs such as PowerPoint and Voice Threads. These tools will enable my students to learn using a variety of sensory approaches while being able to experiment with various tools and information to process the material in question. By implementing instruction in this way students are able to make deeper connections with material through Non Linguistic Representations by incorporating text with visual aids (Pickering & Marzano, 2009). In fact, when students are assigned projects allowing them to develop and design during instruction they tend to increase their performance to a higher level (Orey, 2001). Additionally, students that are provided the opportunity to use both linguistic and non linguistic representations during instruction are found to retain information better (Pitler, Hubbell, Kuhn, & Malenoski).

Overall, with the assistance of this course I was able to view how technology plays a huge role in influencing effective instruction with all of the learning theories. Additionally, the various technology tools I was introduce to and able to experiment with proved to be valuable assets that will transform classroom to a more positive student-centered environment designed to accommodate the 21^st century learner.

Lever-Duffy, J. & McDonald, J. (2008). Theoretical Foundations (Laureate Education,

Inc., custom ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education, Inc.

Orey, M. (2009, March). Bridging Learning Theory, Instruction, and Technology.

“Instructional Theory vs. Learning Theory”. (Laureate, CD-ROM, 2009 release).

Orey, M. (2009, March). Bridging Learning Theory, Instruction, and Technology.

“Technology: Instructional Tool vs. Learning Tool”. (Laureate, CD-ROM, 2009

release).

Orey, M.(Ed.). (2001). Emerging perspectives on learning, teaching, and technology.

Multiple Intellegences and Learning Styles. Retrieved from http://projects.coe.

coe.uga.edu/epltt/index.php?title=Main_Page.

Pickering, D., & Marzano, R. (2009, March). Bridging Learning Theory, Instruction, and

Technology. “Instructional Strategies Part I”. (Laureate, CD-ROM, 2009

release).

Pickering, D., & Marzano, R. (2009, March). Bridging Learning Theory, Instruction, and

Technology. “Instructional Strategies Part II”. (Laureate, CD-ROM, 2009

release).

Pitler, H., Hubbell, E., Kuhn, M., & Malenoski, K. (2007). Using technology with

classroom instruction that works. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Wolfe, P. (2009, March). Bridging Learning Theory, Instruction, and Technology.

“Brain Research and Learning”. (Laureate, CD-ROM, 2009 release).

This week Chapter 7 in our textbook focused on cooperative learning activities.  Collaborative group work such as this requests students to work together in order to absorb new information and problem-solve and will important skills for them to obtain in our growing global society. In fact, Thomas Friedman also recognizes this in The World Is Flat (2005) by stating:

“We are living in a time when learning and innovation are increasingly

  global.  To be prepared for the fast-paced, virtual workplace that they

  will inherit, today’s students need to be able to learn and produce

  cooperatively.”(Pitler, Hubbell, Kuhn, & Malenoski, 2007, p.139)

 

Advances in technology have not only changed the way we interact in society and the workplace, but has also caused us to transform the structure of our classrooms tailoring more towards a student-centered approach.  Where learning in the past was based on a more teacher-centered and assessed on an individual basis, today we find it to be geared more towards the students needs and more social by implementing cooperative learning methods of instruction.  Technology and Connectivism also allow students expand our social learning with their ability to disburse and share information all over the globe.  Connectivism is a process where knowledge is formed by networking and navigating networks of knowledge (Siemans, 2009).  Many cooperative learning tools, which compliment social learning theories such as multimedia projects, web resources, and communication software provide our students with a very unique way of obtaining knowledge through these social networking tools.  In this way learning no longer just the individual learner that needs to be considered but a far more complex network of learners within the virtual environment (SIemans, 2009).

 

On a daily basis our students use many of these multimedia tools, web resources such as WebQuests where students work in a certain area of study to form a solution, and communication software such as wiki spaces which has grown in popularity where collaboratively students are able to post and add information.” (Pitler, Hubbell, Kuhn, & Malenoski, 2007).   The 21^st century learners are exposed an overwhelming amount of information at one time.  Seimans notes this is where the importance of networks come in where students develop “learning communities to share their ideas with others, thereby “cross pollinating” the learning environment (Seimans, 2005, para.21). 

 

As a result, social learning theories compliment the efforts of Connectivism because this resource allows others to connect and share ideas outside of the classroom, which expands the learning process.  It also provides a social network where many views are expressed between a variety of cultures.  I believe as Walden students we can also relate to the powerful impact this has as students ourselves.  I personally have witnessed through discussions and blogs this particular “cross pollinating” in learning through my fellow colleagues.  It therefore becomes apparent just how powerful connecting socially with these technology tools is to our students learning as well to prepare them for the global world.

 

Orey, M. (Ed.). (2001). Emerging perspectives on learning, teaching, and technology. Retrieved from http://projects.coe.uga.edu/epltt/

 

Pitler, H., Hubbell, E., Kuhn, M., & Malenoski, K. (2007). Using technology with classroom instruction that works. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

 

Orey, M., & Casselman, K. (2009, March). Bridging Learning Theory, Instruction, and

Technology. “Social Learning Theory”. (Laureate, CD-ROM, 2009 release).

 

Siemans, G. (2009, March). Bridging Learning Theory, Instruction, and

Technology. “Connectivism as a Learning Theory”. (Laureate 

Constructivism in Practice

This week we learned about the ideas between constructivist/constructionist and the impact these theories have in the learning process.  Constructivists believe individuals actively construct their own meaning through their experiences (Orey, 2009).  Meanwhile, constructionists believe individuals learn and display their understanding through constructing artifacts or a project they are able to share with others (Orey, 2009).  These ideas create a unique twist on the learning process where learning becomes more individual since it is based upon individual experiences (Lever-Duffy & McDonald, 2007). 

The 21^st learners of today have demonstrated the effectiveness of constructivist/ constructionist theories in our classrooms.  Due to the growing advances in technology these students have grown to be more comfortable in a student-centered classroom, which also integrates technological tools during instruction.   Some of the tools we have learned about in out textbook include spreadsheets, data collection tools, and Web resources (Pitler, Hubbell, Kuhn, & Malenoski, 2007).  These tools allow students to save time calculating information within these formats and spend more time studying and resolving outcomes (Pitler, Hubbell, Kahn, & Malenoski, 2007).  As Dr. Orey mentioned in constructionism how ideas in learning is uniquely constructed within our own minds and experiences (Orey,2009).  This type of activity allows the student to review and see patterns in the information in order to understand material and “fit it in” to their own knowledge.  Such instructional strategies compliment the constructivist/constructionist theories because students’ learning depends on the interpretation of information, which becomes more individual (Lever-Duffy & McDonald, 2007).

In using the constructivist/ constructionist theories in my classroom I have been able to observe the overall effectiveness of its implementation.  Students enjoy hands-on activities which get them involved because it generates a more meaningful learning experience for them and I have found they get much more out of these activities.  Additionally, these student-centered activities give students more control of their learning both academically and socially with others preparing them for the furure.

In my opinion I believe the constructivist/constructionist model is a great approach to learning. These theories focus on the fact that learning is individual to ones own experiences.  As teachers it is one of our goals to get our students involved and make a difference in their learning.  Including students and involving them is an important part.  The spreadsheets, data collection tools, and Web resources develop situations for the learner to become actively involved in inquiry-based activities requiring them to use their experiences to problem-solve and develop understanding.  The teacher serves as a guide during the tasks while students are able to construct their own personal knowledge (Lever-Duffy & McDonald, 2007).

 

Lever-Duffy, J. & McDonald, J. (2008). Theoretical Foundations (Laureate Education, Inc., custom ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education, Inc.

Orey, M. (2009, March). Bridging Learning Theory, Instruction, and Technology.“Constructionist and Constructivist Learning Theories”. (Laureate, CD-ROM 2009 release).

Pitler, H., Hubbell, E., Kuhn, M., & Malenoski, K. (2007). Using technology with classroom instruction that works. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

 

Cognitivism in Practice

The two strategies I chose that correlate with the principles found in the cognitive learning theory are the use of organizing and mapping tools software and multimedia tools.   Examples such as Concept Mapping and the Virtual Field Trip tools assist students in developing instruction that integrate a multi sensory approach in learning.  These particular strategies allow students to acquire, create, and digest a variety of information through technological resources. 

 

Graphic organizers and concept mapping skills are effective strategies in having students construct visual representations of important concepts learned (Orey, 2001).  The construction of these concept maps assist students in organizing information and linking it with visual aids, which supports Paivio’s Dual Coding of Information (Orey, 2009).  This is one reason why strategies such as this relate to the ideas behind the Cognitive Learning Theory.  Professionally, I have used this skill often to assist students in learning and applying concepts.  The benefits I found are very positive due to the fact that they are able to create organize their own ideas.  When they are completed with this process programs such as Inspiration also provide them with an outline format of their picture web (Orey, 2009).  This feature is especially helpful for them when organizing and completing writing tasks.  Unfortunately most teachers are not familiar with this program so it is not utilized to it potential.   There are also many ways teachers can implement this tool in their instruction.  For instance, as Figure 4.1 in our textbook (Pitler, Hubbell, Kuhn, & Malenoski, p.78), this same tool can be used to develop a visual tool in activating a discussion about what students know before starting a particular topic.  

 

Another powerful strategy which is an effective cognitive is the use of  PowerPoint Presentations.  It has been suggested that these multimedia tools are extremely helpful in having students retain content more than other techniques (Pitler, Hubbell, Kuhn, & Malenoski, p.78). Personally, I have used this tool to create Jeopardy Boards for test or quiz reviews or to present notes with video clips.  These strategies increase student performance and overall engagement when participating in activities.  Furthermore, when students are able to construct their own presentations they become exposed to many forms of communication where they are able to organize and construct information in a variety of ways. 

 

These strategies allow students to explore learning in a way where they are able to use problem-solving skills, create, and connect new material during the learning process.   Technology tools such as concept mapping and multimedia program allow students to activate the necessary network model of memory activating a multi sensory approach giving students the ability to make appropriate connections (Orey, 2009).   I believe this is a more constructive approach than the behaviorist approach in promoting positive learning.