.jpg)
I began this journey knowing that I was a digital immigrant and I am now starting to feel a little more like a digital native (Prensky, 2001). For the past six weeks I have been learning all about the use of ICTs to enhance and transform my students’ learning in the classroom. I now believe I am a lot closer to achieving this goal.
This synopsis will consider the theoretical components of
this course that I have studied and how they can be applied to e-learning.
Following this I will draw together some of the ICT tools I have learnt
over the past few weeks, showing how they are linked to learning theories
and how they can be utilised in the classroom. Finally I will consider how I
plan to move forward with what I have learnt.
Learning Theories,
Learning Styles and Frameworks
There are arguably four dominant learning theories:
·
Behaviourism;
·
Cognitivism;
·
Constructivism; and
·
Connectivism.
Of the four theories, I have become particularly familiar
with constructivism, (Culatta, 2012), cognitivism,
(Lein, n.d) and connectivism,
(Siemens, 2004) over the past few weeks.
Constructivism
Constructivism
is a theory which has been developed by Bruner, (Culatta, 2012). The theory is
that cognitive development occurs through social interactions, (Culatta, 2012).
As a learner acquires information he or she processes it in a subjective way,
which results in a deeper understanding, (Lein, n.d.). A great example of how
constructivist learning occurs is through collaborative work where students
build on each other’s knowledge.
Cognitivism
Cognitivist learning theory looks at how the brain processes
information, (Lein, n.d). According to Bloom’s Taxonomy the brain processes information under three domains: The cognitive domain, the affective domain, and the psychomotor domain, (Clark, 2010).
Bloom’s cognitive domain considers how the brain recalls facts and recognises procedural patterns and concepts that serve in the development of intellectual abilities and skills (Clark, 2010). Bloom suggests that there are behaviours which range from simple to difficult, the most difficult requiring the learner to engage in higher order thinking (Clark, 2010).
The affective domain explains how the brain processes information emotionally and the psychomotor domain includes physical movement, coordination and motor-skills, (Clark 2010).
Connectivism
Bloom’s cognitive domain considers how the brain recalls facts and recognises procedural patterns and concepts that serve in the development of intellectual abilities and skills (Clark, 2010). Bloom suggests that there are behaviours which range from simple to difficult, the most difficult requiring the learner to engage in higher order thinking (Clark, 2010).
The affective domain explains how the brain processes information emotionally and the psychomotor domain includes physical movement, coordination and motor-skills, (Clark 2010).
Connectivism
Connectivism is a theory founded by George Siemens (2004)
and suggests that learning “can reside outside of ourselves (within an
organization or a database), [and] is focused on connecting specialized
information sets,” (Siemens, 2004). In fact, Siemens (2004) suggests that in
today’s world it is more important to have “the connections that enable us to
learn more” than it is to have a “current state of knowing”. The Internet is
the best example of connectivism. Through the Internet people are connected
with a never-ending supply of information on almost every topic imaginable. Thus, by
having a connection to the Internet people’s knowledge and learning becomes
exponential.
Learning Styles and Frameworks
In addition to learning theories there is a lot of research
on learning styles- how people learn. Felder and Solomon (n.d.)
suggest that “Students preferentially take in and process information in
different ways: by seeing and hearing, reflecting and acting, reasoning
logically and intuitively, analyzing and visualizing, steadily and in fits and
starts”.
Teachers today are given a number of frameworks to ensure
they teach in ways which suit all learning styles. One of those frameworks is
the Productive Pedagogies
framework in which teachers can use to ensure their students are engaged and
intellectually challenged, (The State of Queensland (Department of Education),
2002). I have explored this framework in my Productive Pedagogies
blog entry.
Another framework in which teachers should abide by is the TPACK framework. The TPACK framework is the basis for all good teaching which utilises technology (Mishra & Koehler, 2006, p1,029). This framework combines technological knowledge, pedagogical knowledge and content knowledge. The argument is that a combination of all three will enhance learning (Baran, Chuang & Thompson, 2011, p370). The framework was developed by Mishra and Koehler (2006) when they added technology to Shulman’s framework, pedagogical content knowledge (PCK), (Baran, Chuang & Thompson, 2011, p370).
Another framework in which teachers should abide by is the TPACK framework. The TPACK framework is the basis for all good teaching which utilises technology (Mishra & Koehler, 2006, p1,029). This framework combines technological knowledge, pedagogical knowledge and content knowledge. The argument is that a combination of all three will enhance learning (Baran, Chuang & Thompson, 2011, p370). The framework was developed by Mishra and Koehler (2006) when they added technology to Shulman’s framework, pedagogical content knowledge (PCK), (Baran, Chuang & Thompson, 2011, p370).
Multimedia in the Classroom
Technology in the classroom is HUGE today and is great
because it incorporates multimedia. “Multimedia is the integration of multiple
forms of media,” (TechTerms.com, n.d.). Utilising multimedia in the classroom
is important because it embraces what is known as ‘dual coding’ theory (Alty,
2002, p2). Paivio (1991, in Swisher, 2007, p15) explains that the brain
processes verbal information and visual information in two different channels.
Information passing through both channels allows for optimal learning, (Mayer
and Anderson in Swisher, 2007, p2). Thus the use of multimedia is excellent for learning!
I will now consider a number of ICT tools and activities which
incorporate the above learning theories, learning styles and frameworks.
Reflecting on the
Six Thinking Hats Wiki Exercise
One of the exercises I partook in for this course was a wiki
activity which required me to consider the issue of mobile phones in the
classroom by using the Six Thinking Hats teaching strategy. Please click on
this link
to see my full blog reflection on this activity.
The Six Thinking Hats was a good pedagogical tool because it
was scaffolded so that I (and other students) had to think from different
perspectives, allowing for higher order thinking in accordance with Bloom’s Taxonomy.
The constructivism learning theory
was evident in the activity because it required students to contribute and
build on each other’s ideas. This also allowed for a deeper level of thinking.
As a future legal studies and English teacher, I envisage I
could use a wiki exercise like the Six Thinking Hats for a number of topics. One
example of how it could be used can be found on my wiki site, which requires students
to consider surrogacy laws in Queensland from the six different thinking
perspectives.
Group One Digital
Tools
The first digital tools I explored in this course were blogs
, wikis and websites.
After considering all three, I chose to explore a wiki site in more depth. Click
here to see my wiki site
which has been set up as a hypothetical unit on Family Law for a legal studies
class.
I chose to explore wikis in more depth because they can be
edited by students, allowing for student-centred learning when well scaffolded.
This can be contrasted to websites which are static.
The great thing about wikis is that they are very diverse.
You can embed digital videos, images and podcasts within them, you can write on
and edit wiki spaces, and you can link the wiki spaces to other sites on the
Internet.
The wiki’s collaborative trait is an example of the
application of Bruner’s theory of constructivist learning (Culatta, 2012)
whilst its ability to connect to the Internet is an example of connectivism
(Siemens, 2004).
Click here to read more of my analysis on wikis.
Group Two Digital
Tools
The next lot of ICT tools I experimented with were digital images,
digital videos
and podcasts.
I chose to explore podcasts in more depth for three reasons:
1. I
felt as though I did not have too much to learn about digital images;
2. I
believe I still need more time to become confident with using digital videos;
and
3. I
think podcasts are an excellent multimedia tool which can be used with students
of all ages.
You can find evidence of my work with podcasts and vokis on
my wiki site.
One of the benefits of working with multimedia such as
podcasts is that they incorporate the ‘dual coding’ theory (Alty, 2002, p2)
which optimises learning for students with varying learning styles, (Mayer and
Anderson in Swisher, 2007, p2). I can see podcasts being used in my classes for publishing students’ work, interviewing
guest speakers, in conjunction with presentations and more.
Click here
to read more on my analysis of podcasts.
Group Three
Digital Tools
The third group of digital tools I considered were PowerPoint,
Prezi and Glogster.
The primary reason I was drawn to PowerPoint over the other two tools was
because I am a sequential learner,
(Felder and Solomon, n.d.) and I like its linear format.
You can see my experiments with PowerPoint on my wiki site.
I firstly prepared a basic presentation then, as I experimented with the program,
I learnt how to make a more complex presentations which include hyperlinks to
other slides, a ‘home’ button to return to the first page, sound and digital
images. I also learnt how to use PowerPoint to create a digital video.
PowerPoint is an excellent multimedia tool because it allows
students to embed all sorts of media and combine with text. Again, tools like
this help to enhance learning because they appeal to the varying learning
styles (Mayer and Anderson in Swisher, 2007, p2). I can therefore see myself
using this program in a number of ways in the classroom, ranging from student
presentations, interactive class quizzes, concept mapping and more.
To read more on my analysis of PowerPoint click here.
Group Four Tools
The group four tools required me to explore animation tools
and real-life simulation tools. In accordance with the learning pyramid
, simulating real life experiences is an excellent way for students to learn
because students retain up to seventy-five percent of what they learn when they
“practice by doing”, (Atherton, 2010).
Some of the real-life simulation tools were really great and
very applicable to my teaching areas, English and legal studies. In particular,
I would have liked to have explored the Questacon Crime Scene Investigation tool
properly, but it requires more than one person to participate in the activity. I
can see some potential for that tool in my legal studies classes. Click here to
see my analysis of that tool.
The group four tool I explored in more depth was Dafur isdying.
This is another simulation game which highlights the genocide issues in the
Dafur region of western Sudan. This game would be excellent for highlighting
human rights issues in legal studies classes and possibly could be used in my
English teaching area, depending on the unit of work. Click here to read
more on my analysis of this learning tool.
Where to from
here?
It has been a busy six weeks, learning about learning theories,
styles and frameworks as well as the many different ICT tools. Although I will
never be an ‘IT expert’, I now feel much more confident about using technology
for teaching.
From here I will now work towards planning lessons which put
into effect the TPACK framework, (Mishra & Koehler, 2006). Taking into
consideration all of the different learning styles (Felder and Solomon, n.d.), I
am sure that the use of ICTs will help me reach all learners.
References
Alty, J. (2002). Dual
Coding Theory and Computer Education: Some media experiments to examine the
effects of different media on learning.
Atherton, J. (2010). Myths
and Misconceptions. Retrieved from http://www.learningandteaching.info/learning/myths.htm.
Baran, E., Chuang, H., & Thompson, A. (2011) TPACK: An emerging research and development
tool for teacher educators. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational
Technology, 10(4), 370-377.
Clark, D. (2010) Bloom’s
Taxonomy of Learning Domains. Retrieved from http://www.nwlink.com/~donclark/hrd/bloom.html#cognitive.
Culatta, R. (2012) Social
Development Theory (L. Vygotsky). Retrieved from http://www.instructionaldesign.org/theories/constructivist.html
Felder, R., Solomon, (n.d.). Learning Styles. Retrieved from http://www4.ncsu.edu/unity/lockers/users/f/felder/public/Learning_Styles.html.
Lein, K. (n.d.). Elearning
Pedagogy: Constructivist Approach. Retrieved from http://elearningpedagogy.com/constructivist.html.
Mishra, P., Koehler, M. (2006). Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge: A Framework for Teacher
Knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6) 1,017-1,054.
Siemens, G. (2004). Connectivism: A Learning Theory for
the Digital Age. Retrieved from http://www.elearnspace.org/Articles/connectivism.htm
Swisher, D. (2007) Does
multimedia truly enhance learning? Moving beyond the visual media bandwagon
toward instructional effectiveness.
The State of Queensland (Department of Education). (2002). A guide to productive pedagogies- Classroom
reflection manual. Retrieved from http://education.qld.gov.au/public_media/reports/curriculum-framework/productive-pedagogies/pdfs/prodped.pdf.
