Connectivism as a Theory
Theories of learning were first widely introduced in the 20th century. They were primarily based on didactic pedagogies the outcomes of which required simple yes or no answers as a response to the course content. However, with the development of computer networking, the Internet, and the Web arose the drive for new educational transformations that had to happen to keep up with the inventions in technology. Behaviorist, cognitivist, and constructivist theories were not entirely living up to distance education needs considering rapid changes in ways information was delivered. Development of World Wide Web set the stage for new learning theories in the 21st century (Harasim, 2012). The expansion of technology has shifted learning theories to connectivism that recently started to play an essential role in the development of Distance Education (DE). Connectivism is based on previous learning theories and is grounded constructivist principles. The theory of connectivism was created by George Siemens and Stephen Downes in 2004 to validate Massive Open Online Courses (MOOC) which would later be launched in 2008. According to Siemens (Siemens, 2004) “Connectivism presents a model of learning that acknowledges the tectonic shifts in society where learning is no longer an internal, individualistic activity” (Siemens, 2004, p. 7), but rather a new learning theory based off connectibility of learners to a network. It is essential to understand that without connectivism, MOOCs would not have been created. Online courses that are free were designed to give learners information to subjects that are for anyone to learn. MOOCs are here to obtain significant information for free from respected teachers, provide people with a way to give them knowledge. MOOCs can influence higher education by providing a way to reach more individuals by utilizing the social media platforms and having a broader audience (Siemens, 2004). An argument can be made that networks have always existed and therefore the connections made through them to advance knowledge have also still existed. So, in that respect, nothing is really new. The society figured out the way to learn faster. People live in a data-driven environment and want information that is accurate and current. The acquisition of this report, which in turns fosters knowledge, is through established/emerging networks. It is the democratization of information which Siemens (Siemens, 2004), acknowledges as the fuel that ignites the theory. Connection learning is no longer an internal activity but rather a collaborative one that arises from browsing the Web. Connectivism may enhance some aspects of it, but knowledge is internal to self, although, Kopp & Hill (2008) suggest that the theory is not mature enough to be embraced as one. However, Downes argues that connectivism is a theory and in the MOOC can influence the course of higher education in four fundamental design principles that were identified below (Downes, 2005):
However, there are different types of networks, which create sets of connections between the global network entities that can be formed and organized. It allows people to rely on networks to generate and contain knowledge. That knowledge is not perfect. In fact, anything of that sort of experience can be even more liable to error because it is indeed dependent on interpretations allowing the users to fill in the gaps of perception on their own. Moreover, the age of connectivism still has plenty of remnants of previous eras when connectivity was limited by control over the perspective of the mind of one man, or one group, scaling the mechanisms of media to their own ends (Downes, 2005). While parts of connectivism are new, many of its core principles, as outlined by Siemens, are drawn from existing theories (Siemens, 2004). For example, the argument that knowledge can exist in non-human appliances was less likely to be made before the internet and Web 2.0; however, it could always have been made. Does consciousness exist within a book or a library? Or only if one reads the books? Someone wrote the book, but did they make that knowledge live, and whether that experience exists forever or not, whether it is ever consumed, understood, or interacted with again? Capacity to know more than what is currently known has always been crucial for students, but it is essential for all humans as they move through their lives and increase competency. The knowledge and skills one has already mastered are probably as valuable as ones’ capacity for more. This may seem crude but consider a heart surgeon, for example. Of course, one would like him/her to be up to date on his/her professional development, but his/her existing, already gained knowledge, skills, abilities, competency are all really at the center of what he/she has to offer. The importance of nurturing and maintaining connections to facilitate continual learning reminds of constructivism and education as a social process. Connections can be made outside of the interpersonal relationships; they can be created with institutions and knowledge bases. Although, constructivism and social learning theory never denied or shunned those connections. Ultimately, connectivism is not new. However, its recommendations regarding how to interact with the new ways knowledge can be stored, presented, developed, and associated by everyone is. Attention to the underlying framework informing social and public knowledge can find a new renaissance that is not perfection, but often less filled with ignorance and superstition (Downes, 2005). Conclusion: As George Siemens stated, the impact of technology has caused fundamental changes in the way people think and learn. Having knowledge about a given topic is now less important than the ability to find understanding of that issue. Employers now look for potential employees’ skills to think flexibly and solve problems, rather than emphasize a given field of study. The growth of technology and connectivism theory has increased demand for open resources and MOOCs. As Siemens has stated, learning is a continual process, lasting a lifetime. Learning and work-related activities are no longer separate. In many situations, they are the same (Siemens, 2004). References Bates, T. (2017). Variation of MOOC's design. Teaching in a digital age. 5.3. Retrieved from https://opentextbc.ca/teachinginadigitalage/chapter/section-7-4-design-models-for-moocs/ Downes, S. (2005, December 22). An introduction to connective knowledge. Retrieved from http://www.downes.ca/post/33034 Harasim, L. (2012). Learning theory and online technologies: Online Collaborative Learning Theory. Retrieved from https://learn.umuc.edu/content/enforced/299505-022082-01-2178-GO1-9041/Harasim_OCL_CH_06_LTAOT.pdf?_&d2lSessionVal=RUPh78n6qGSUaqURpuqxP6vCG Kop, R. & Hill, A. (2008). Connectivism: Learning theory of the future or vestige of the past? International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning 9(3). Retrieved from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/523/1137 Siemens, G. (2004). Connectivism: A learning theory for the digital age. elearnspace. Retrieved from http://www.elearnspace.org/Articles/connectivism.htm
0 Comments
Popular, or pop culture is the collection of cultural products and ideas that flood the consumer market of a society’s population. Cultural products such as music, fashion, art, sports, politics, technology and television are some of the many factors used to influence a person’s attitude, opinion, or belief on a specific topic of interest. Given the fact that popular culture is a dominant force in mainstream society and cultures, incorporating pop culture into content materials in the classroom is proving to be a favorable approach to engage students in meaningful learning.
Teachers around the country are abandoning the traditional teacher centered objective instruction and instead, opting for Jean Piaget and Lev Vygotsky’s student centered constructive pedagogy to activate student engagement in learning (Koonce, 2004). Ali Rahimi, Ph.D. Professor of Applied Linguistics and author of 13 published books, conducted a research study to compare the major philosophical assumptions and major characteristics of objective and constructive teaching styles and the subsequent effects each approach had on student engagement in learning (2011). In his research, Rahimi examined both methods of instruction to determine the key ideas and traits of teaching and learning. Studying the components of objective teaching Rahimi determined that the transfer of knowledge is mainly from teacher to learner and relies heavily on textbook instruction to convey learning. Students are considered passive learners who submit to deliberate instruction and are expected to learn what the teacher knows to be true. Evaluating the transfer of information, Rahimi explains that students become disengaged from meaningful learning as “teachers tend to value correct answers and ignore student thinking on topics being taught” (2011, 91-94). Subsequently, when students are hindered from making personal connections with the materials being taught they will retain the acquired knowledge through rote learning or memorization and be forced to recall information in a systematic matter rather than evaluate learned information for accuracy and meaning. On the opposite side of the spectrum, Rahimi determined the instruction in a constructivist classroom is based on student centered learning; where the learner engages in study using their prior knowledge and experience to make a direct connection to the materials being taught (2011, 96). The teacher creates a learning environment in which the students are presented with complex problems or projects that are supported by “information resources, cognitive tools, and learning support strategies,” such as teacher modeling, scaffolding, and collaborative learning (2011, 98). Students are encouraged to analyze and evaluate information to interpret meaning based on their own experience and understanding of the world in which they live. Students engage with products of culture and use this information to construct a reality that meets specific learning goals (2011, 96-101). The constructivist method of teaching is a learner controlled environment where students become engaged through practical responses to problems. Students engage and participate in learning by incorporating their own ideas, experiences, and individual style into classroom activities to gain the essential knowledge needed for meaningful learning. Agreeing with Rahimi’s research that a constructivist approach to teaching promotes student engagement in learning, David Childs, a professor at Northern Kentucky University, integrated aspects of popular culture into his high school social studies curriculum to explore the topic of racial stereotyping in America (Childs, 291). Childs observed that his students were quick to engage in conversations about “being black” but were reluctant to “read and listen and foster historical thinking” (294) in relation to mandated textbooks and formal instruction. Listening to his students, and identifying their specific interests in music – rap and hip hop, Childs decided to incorporate popular music into classroom activities. For over a decade Childs has continued to apply pop culture to all areas of social studies citing, “Hip-hop culture consists of values that were derived from African Americans’ historic and contemporary struggles and survival. . . Many of the themes in hip-hop music center on social justice and equity and often carry a political message” (297). Childs states that it is not only the reluctance of the student to explore delicate topics such as racism and slavery, but many times teachers, especially those with a different ethnic background to their students, will inadvertently avoid in depth instruction that deals with issues of a sensitive nature. While certain topics may be difficult for both students and teachers alike, there is a necessity of effectively engaging the subject matter regardless of how challenging it may be. Childs argues that “music is a great tool to keep children’s attention” and music of various genres can be used to address social problems such as “poverty, racism . . . and global issues [such] as hunger, disease, and war” (295-300). Childs firsthand experience at promoting student engagement through the use of music and lyrics is testimony of how the understanding and application of popular culture is a powerful tool for engaging students in the instruction and learning in today’s classroom. Similarly, Jabari Mahiri, a professor at the Graduate School of Education at the University of California, has studied the correlation of classroom instruction and student engagement extensively and suggests, “formal schooling as it is currently configured might eventually become obsolete,” as more teachers are considering the “diverse pedagogies and politics of young people’s learning” (Mahiri, 382). Mahiri discusses the research studies of his co-worker Beth Samuelson, director of Student Organizational Services to further explain how the workings of pop culture pedagogies “dynamically engage” students in the academic process to make meaning of learning (384). In a recent study Samuelson met with a group of “unschoolers” who had dropped out of school stating the curriculum of the school was “reproducing the curriculum of formal schooling” and the students were disengaged in learning (384). Documenting the educational lives of these teenagers, Samuelson noted that the “unschoolers” sought learning through various styles of popular culture. These students visited libraries, museums, movies, exploratoriums, and connected learning through various form of technology: online journals, music, dance, and distance educational classes. Samuelson’s findings indicated the “unschoolers” “far surpassed a formal high school education, and were “highly competitive in college testing and for college admissions” largely because their personal experiences prepared them to be independent thinkers and learners (383-385). In a second study, Mahiri explains how a teacher at an inner city school in California used popular culture to engage his students in an ELA class. The study, conducted by Jeffrey Duncan-Andrade and Ernest Morrell at the University of California, examined the relationship between pop culture pedagogy and student engagement in learning. The students were primarily minority students of African American, Chinese, and Latino heritage and considered ‘at risk’ students who lived in low socioeconomic neighborhoods. In mandated text book readings the teacher employed “car culture and its associated literacies, graffiti writing and other visual literacies, and gangs and gang literacies” to connect the students’ lives with the texts they were reading (384-387). Additionally, comic books from Japan, China, and America were read to form a sense of unity in a group of diverse students (386). Duncan-Andrade and Morrell observed that the students were actively engaged in the lessons when learning occurred through direct association of students’ cultures. Their findings concluded that the original sullen classroom became active in discussions and group activities, and students displayed a higher degree of self-efficacy when tasked with challenging assignments (Mahiri, 2000). Therefoer, out of my research I can suggest: Teachers Engage the students Make your classes as close to real life as possible Give real life examples Incorporate popular culture to make the learning process easier Students Use past experiences to form new ones Understand the material through collaborative discussions Share past experiences with others to form new ones together Listen to the teacher, but also explore beyond the classroom material References Childs, D. J. (2014). “Let's Talk About Race”: Exploring racial stereotypes using popular culture in social studies classrooms. Social Studies, 105(6), 291-300. Hanna, J. (2014). Connecting with sullen students: Using an emotionally honest classroom to reach out to disengaged students. Clearing House, 87(5), 224-228. Koonce, G.L. (2004). Taking sides: Clashing views on educations issues. Is Constructivism the Best Philosophy of Education?.18( 48-58). Retrieved from: http://thesciencelane.weebly.com/uploads/7/9/9/0/7990143/taking_sides_issue_1.4.pdf Mahiri, J. (2000). Pop culture pedagogy and the end(s) of school. Journal Of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 44(4), 382-387 Mangram, J. A. (2008). Either/or Rules: Social Studies teachers' talk about media and popular culture. Theory And Research In Social Education, 36(2), 32-60. Pellerin, L. A. (2005). Student disengagement and the socialization styles of high schools. Social Forces, (2). 1159. Rahimi, Ali. (2011) Constructivist vs. objectivists learning environments. Contemporary Online Language Educational Journal, (1) (89-103). Retrieved from: http://www.academia.edu/4696067/Constructivist_vs._objectivist_learning Sleeter, C.E., & Grant, C.A. (2009). Making choices for multicultural education (6th ed.). Hoboken, NJ:John Wiley & Sons. U.S. Department of Homeland Security. (2016, August). Office of Immigration Statistics. Retrieved from United States Department of Homeland Security: https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/DHS%202014%20Yearbook I personally think that not every theory can become policy. But Distance Education did not appear because of new methods or new pedagogical approaches, but instead, it happened because of further information and education technologies. Otte and Banke said that “Teaching with technology means working with technologists” (Otto & Banke, 2006, p. 25). The line between Information Technology and Instructional Technology became less defined. A DE leader should be able to understand the interrelationship to plan strategically. Therefore, I think our old policies, rhetoric, and organizational structures have first to recognize the fact that a certain convergence between traditional educational pedagogic and online pedagogic has occurred. It is not just “distance” that has been redefined by information and communication technologies; time and place have been redefined as well. Otto and Banke note that consolidation or centralization maximizes efficiency and control, while decentralization or differentiation increases innovation and sense of local ownership. The ideal solution, they suggest, “is probably one in which matters of resource management are centralized, while the means and methods of instruction those resources make possible are largely controlled by those doing the teaching” (Otto & Banke, 2006, p. 29). Therefore, I think a theory can inform policy utilizing strategic planning that will prove to be strong enough to become policy.
I believe that the primary stakeholders who do not always see eye-to-eye are in classroom vs. distance education instructors. Some faculty members still think that distance education is just an extension of traditional classroom education, which makes it more challenging to compose and form new theories and policies. It makes it more difficult to find ways for a smoother transition to online learning. I think the best way to resolve the competing interests is to give in classroom instructors an opportunity to teach courses online so that they feel the difference and see opportunities in the other forms of teaching. References Otte, G. & Banke M. (2006). Online learning: New models for leadership and organization in higher education TO: American schools in Stuttgart, Germany.
FROM: Olga Usova DATE: November 26, 2017 SUBJECT: Action Research Proposal: Implementing Pop Culture to Promote Student Engagement in Online Learning Environment. I. Introduction The action research proposal explores the relationship of popular culture and student engagement in distance education employing constructivist and collaborative theories. The study will be conducted in Stuttgart, Germany, where students are from varying backgrounds and ethnic groups with a somewhat equal 50/50 gender split. Most of the students reside in American households; however, some of the students are bilingual or consider English as their second language. A small number of students have never lived in America and have been educated in local schools in Europe and/or Asia. All students in the study groups will be required to participate in the same activities but only one group – the test subjects – will receive instruction that employs elements of pop culture.
II. Review of Literature Teachers around the country are abandoning the traditional teacher centered objective instruction and instead, opting for Jean Piaget and Lev Vygotsky’s student centered constructive pedagogy to activate student engagement in learning (Koonce, 2004). Ali Rahimi, Ph.D. Professor of Applied Linguistics and author of 13 published books, conducted a research study to compare the major philosophical assumptions and major characteristics of objective and constructive teaching styles and the subsequent effects each approach had on student engagement in learning (Rahimi, 2011). In his research, Rahimi examined both methods of instruction to determine the key ideas and traits of teaching and learning. Studying the components of objective teaching Rahimi determined that the transfer of knowledge is mainly from teacher to learner and relies heavily on textbook instruction to convey learning. Students are considered passive learners who submit to deliberate instruction and are expected to learn what the teacher knows to be true. Evaluating the transfer of information, Rahimi explains that students become disengaged from meaningful learning as “teachers tend to value correct answers and ignore student thinking on topics being taught” (Rahimi, 2011, p. 91-94). On the opposite side of the spectrum, Rahimi determined the instruction in a constructivist classroom is based on student centered learning; where the learner engages in study using their prior knowledge and experience to make a direct connection to the materials being taught (Rahimi, 2011, p. 96). The teacher creates a learning environment in which the students are presented with complex problems or projects that are supported by “information resources, cognitive tools, and learning support strategies,” such as teacher modeling, scaffolding, and collaborative learning (Rahimi, 2011, p. 98). Students are encouraged to analyze and evaluate information to interpret meaning based on their own experience and understanding of the world in which they live. Students engage with products of culture and use this information to construct a reality that meets specific learning goals (Rahimi, 2011, p. 96-101). The constructivist method of teaching is a learner controlled environment where students become engaged through practical responses to problems. Students engage and participate in learning by incorporating their own ideas, experiences, and individual style into classroom activities to gain the essential knowledge needed for meaningful learning. Agreeing with Rahimi’s research that a constructivist approach to teaching promotes student engagement in learning, David Childs, a professor at Northern Kentucky University, integrated aspects of popular culture into his high school social studies curriculum to explore the topic of racial stereotyping in America (Childs, 2014, p. 291). Childs observed that his students were quick to engage in conversations about “being black” but were reluctant to “read and listen and foster historical thinking” (Childs, 2014, p. 294) in relation to mandated textbooks and formal instruction. Listening to his students, and identifying their specific interests in music – rap and hip hop, Childs decided to incorporate popular music into classroom activities. Childs firsthand experience at promoting student engagement through the use of music and lyrics is testimony of how the understanding and application of popular culture is a powerful tool for engaging students in the instruction and learning in today’s classroom. III. Methodology The preliminary research and studies on the correlation between popular culture and student engagement in learning is positive. My proposal explores how schools can make similar connections to students’ lives by employing elements of pop culture in relation to text readings in distance education. This study is generated to answer the question, “Would employing elements of popular culture in pedagogy promote student engagement in meaningful learning?”
Theoretically, a good starting point would be on the topic of fashion and how society judges one another on clothing, hair, and body image. The topic of fashion is prevalent in most cultures and would ignite a discussion on how Faulkner has characterized Emily and the townsfolk in the story. Similarly, a discussion on the recent political debates would illustrate Faulkner’s depiction of a changed society. Students would be able to identify with the changes in government to the changes they will see in their own neighborhoods and communities. Borrowing from the study conducted by Duncan-Andrade and Morrell, a lesson segment dedicated to gang violence and loyalty would be an ideal pop culture reference to activate meaning in the death of Emily’s husband and necrophilia. Finally, music and or movies of any genre could be used to analyze and interpret the actions of any of the characters throughout the story. Both classes will follow the same classroom framework. In all lessons (1-10) activities will begin with a whole class discussion on the specific chapter(s) assigned that day. Before each lesson the students in both groups will be provided with a student survey form and a graphic organizer to make notes and answer questions relating to the text.
References Bates, T. (2017). Constructivism. Chapter 2 Teaching in a digital age. Retrieved from https://opentextbc.ca/teachinginadigitalage/chapter/section-3-4-constructivism/ Childs, D. J. (2014). “Let's Talk About Race”: Exploring racial stereotypes using popular culture in social studies classrooms. Social Studies, 105(6), 291-300. Koonce, G.L. (2004). Taking sides: Clashing views on educations issues. Is Constructivism the Best Philosophy of Education?.18( 48-58). Retrieved from: http://thesciencelane.weebly.com/uploads/7/9/9/0/7990143/taking_sides_issue_1.4.pdf Rahimi, Ali. (2011) Constructivist vs. objectivists learning environments. Contemporary Online Language Educational Journal, (1) (89-103). Retrieved from: http://www.academia.edu/4696067/Constructivist_vs._objectivist_learning 1. Can you see the difference between ‘Open Collaborative Learning’ and ‘Communities of Inquiry’? Or Are they really the same model with different names? Collaborative Learning, as particular form of constructivist theory, was originally called computer-mediated communication. Now it is called Online Collaborative Learning theory. Students are incouraged to work online to create their own knowledge where a teacher plays an active role as part of that learning community. Community of Inquiry, in my opinion, is a complimentary, or sub-method, of Collaborative Learning where students can share imperial evidence, practice implications, and share, agree/disagree in their opinions. The only difference I see is that Open Collaborative Learning works better in smaller groups. Communities of inquiry can work well for large groups as well because the more individuals ingage in purposeful critical discourse, the faster they can confirm mutual understanding or come to the same conclusions. In Collaborative Learning, the students do not have to form mutual understanding. They can form their knowledge non-stop, without Collaborative conclusion. 2. Do you agree that either of these models can be applied just as successfully online as face-to-face? The Community of Inquiry presents a process of creating a deep and meaningful (collaborative-constructivist) learning experience through the development of three elements: social, cognitive, and teaching presence. All three elements can be applied just as successfully online as they do face-to-face. Social element and teaching presence do not always happen simultaneously, but the collaboration can happen overtime. 3. Do you see other strengths and weaknesses with the models? Beacause neither of these theories scale easily, the classroom discussions (face-to-face and online) might require more time to gain necessary knowledge and assessment bases. 4. Is this common sense dressed up as theory? Honestly, I am not sure... It seems to me that a constructivist theory alone has enough and adding two more sub-theories could be a simple common sense. Frankly speaking, I understood from the reading that within the constructivist model, researchers recognize several models of learning, and a collaborative model is one of them. So, as far as I realize, a collaborative model is formed by means of adding computers and online access to the constructivist model and broadening the principles of it. The collaborative model of learning happens merely when an individual interacts with other individuals to improve their mental knowledge formations through discussions and information sharing.
Constructivism is a learner-centered approach that allows the students think for themselves, forming their knowledge by establishing connections with past experience. It does not mean that a teacher can sit back and watch students learn on their own. Quite the opposite, the teacher leads them towards forming their knowledge based on past experiences. I think if I had to teach military students, the main weaknesses of both constructivist and collaborative approaches would be the fact that this approach does not scale easily. To form a current knowledge based on past experience that the students develop themselves requires very skilled instructors and very few students to educated thoroughly and mainly. Each student’s thinking process is different. To allow them to form their knowledge can be challenging in big auditoriums. Collaborative learning can be even more challenging for teaching online than constructivist approach on its own because group learning online requires a lot of work. A constructivist approach can bring even more in-depth knowledge because it often allows the students more thorough learning techniques. The main strength of both collaborative and constructivist approaches is the fact that both can lead to profound, academic learning if not better than in a classroom. The amount of knowledge the instructors give online and the amount of work they put into an understanding of the material for students on their own in both approaches often compensate for the lack of physical activity. They can also directly support the development of a range of high-level intellectual skills, such as critical thinking, analytical thinking, synthesis, and evaluation, Overall, I think analytical rubrics provide more information than holistic rubrics in both approaches – behaviorist and cognitivist.
Holistic rubrics are used more often when there is no definite answer required. They focus on the overall quality or understanding of the content or subject. It is a quicker scoring system for instructors and less detailed scoring diagram for students. In behaviorist approach, these rubrics can be used, but they do not provide enough feedback to keep positive feedback current and constant. Holistic rubrics combine different kinds of thinking into a single category, which creates less work for instructors, and more doubt for students, especially in behaviorist approach (Mertler, 2001). I think holistic rubrics are more appropriate for the cognitivist approach; however, they still leave the motivation aspect out, because a student must be self-motivated enough to receive an overall score. When separate parts are graded, like in analytical rubrics, and feedback is provided for each of them, the students have the opportunity to correct their mistakes and adjust along the way. Every instructor and a student are different. Although the scoring system is supposed to be on a neutral level, since neither of both rubrics, holistic or analytical, can have a mathematical approach to them, using analytical method seems to be more appropriate for both approaches – cognitivist and behavioral. “Instead of the holistic rubric's lumping of several different traits into one category, an analytical rubric separates them” (Pierce, 2006). Although analytical rubrics do take more time to score, they “can be useful to departments assessing student's thinking skills in assignments and projects in multi-section courses to determine which areas of student thinking need more attention in the course” (Pierce, 2006). References Mertler, C., A. (2001). Designing scoring rubrics for your classroom. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 7(25). Retrieved from: http://www.pareonline.net/getvn.asp?v=7&n=25 Peirce, W. (2006). Designing rubrics for assessing higher order thinking. Retrieved from: http://academic.pgcc.edu/~wpeirce/MCCCTR/Designingrubricsassessingthinking.html By comparing behaviorist and cognitivist approaches to online teaching and learning, I came to the following conclusions that I could use in my practice of online instructing.
1. First, I think behaviorist approach is best for in classroom environment, directly because teachers and learners can observe each other’s behavior and exchange feedback right away. In my opinion, online teaching and learning is a mix of both approaches, behaviorist and cognitive. Although in behaviorist approach consequences occur immediately in a classroom environment, they can be easily transferred to the online environment as well through feedback and grades. In Distance education, simultaneous, immediate feedback is slightly delayed. However, providing feedback can occur when students submit their assignments, participate in weekly discussions and group projects. Providing positive reinforcement can happen in any form in online teaching. There is no disadvantage from in classroom positive reinforcement. The only downside is timing, which does not always occur instantly (Standridge, 2002). Positive reinforcement is significant, especially for online learners. Showing students that you are interested in their work, reinforcing that interest with additional information, and actively engaging in discussions is my goal as a future online educator (Standridge, 2002). As for negative reinforcements in behaviorist approach, they are not different from in classroom environment. Obtaining a lower score on the assignment or submitting all assignments on time that would result in the lowest grade being dropped, or perfect attendance – are all very similar to what can be used in distance education negative reinforcements (Standridge, 2002). The same can be said about punishments. For instance, the students can be dropped from the class, earn a low grade, or receive warnings from an instructor. Although I think behaviorist approach of more suitable, in my opinion, for in classroom learning, instructors subconsciously use this approach in online teaching as well. Whether the response is delayed or not, our behavior and reflexes are still present in any form of studying. 2. On the other hand, I think, cognitive theories pertain mostly to students rather than instructors, because it is an internal learning that involves our memory, thinking, reflections, abstractions, motivation – anything that helps learners process and absorb information given to them better (Gunderson, 2009). “Students organize old knowledge, scripts, and schema, find relationships, and link new information to old” (Gunderson, 2009). This is when it is very important for instructors to understand that “learners have different backgrounds/experiences which can impact learning outcomes; determine the most effective way to organize and structure new information to work with these backgrounds/experiences; arrange practice with feedback so that the new information is effectively and efficiently assimilated and /or accommodated with the learner’s cognitive structure” (Gunderson, 2009) The main weakness of this approach is that it can be challenging to know everyone’s background to use specific ways of teaching in an online environment. However, this is a robust approach when it comes to giving necessary knowledge for students to study and rely on their senses. References Gunderson, G. (2009). Cognitive approaches to learning. Retrieved from http://etec.ctlt.ubc.ca/510wiki/Cognitive_Approaches_to_Learning#Key_Components_of_Cognitive_Learning_Approaches Standridge, M. (2002). Behaviorism. In M. Orey (Ed.), Emerging perspectives on learning, teaching, and technology. Retrieved from http://epltt.coe.uga.edu Saba in his "Distance Education Theory, Methodology, and Epistemology: A Pragmatic Paradigm" discusses how different and at the same time how similar distance versus face-to-face education can be. As for the final results, the difference between the two is not that significant. Eventually, students learn the same material and obtain the same knowledge. However, because the teachers and the students do not meet in person, the complexity of distance education can be overwhelming for both educators and students.
I have been taking online classes for quite some time. The first couple of weeks of each year are the toughest for me, because I build a new schedule, manage my time differently, and I have to compose some system for each class because I usually take two to three of them. I reach my equilibrium by dividing each class into sections. The first half of the week I read all the material given and search the internet for additional resources. The second half of the week I respond to discussions, and then I write my papers on the weekends. If I do not have enough time to read any extra material, this is when I am out of my equilibrium, because I feel that I am behind on something important – some significant changes in the world, or valuable information that I missed. I assume because I went to schools with behaviorist approach to studying, I still have to have a system and some discipline towards my online education to be able to keep up and maintain that equilibrium everyone strives for. References Saba, F. (2003) "Distance Education Theory, Methodology, and Epistemology: A Pragmatic Paradigm" in Handbook of Distance Education. pp. 3-19. Olga Usova posted Sep 16, 2017 9:06 PM In chapter 1 of his book, Tony Bates is talking about education being directly connected to the labor market. I think this is the major challenge I will encounter when I am an online instructor or an online curriculum “builder” because labor market changes so rapidly. Distance education is very focused on knowledge rather than experience and practice. This is where I will have to find a fine line between those two to make sure I incorporate both in my teaching, especially because more and more students are interested in accomplishing their degrees online. I believe, in fifty to a hundred years from now, all education will be distance education. I will not live that long, but the effect of it we can perceive even now. More and more students choose to work full-time and go to school full-time. They take either hybrid classes or online classes to do that. How do you teach them to be fully prepared for future professions if they choose their college education to be their future career? This is the question I often ask myself. I often wonder whether I will be able to find a job after I finish my degree or not. Fortunately, most jobs have a training or probation period that helps new employees adjust to new environment. However, not all jobs do, and a lot of them want you to have experience. I often hear people say that they cannot be hired because they are overqualified but do not have enough experience. Therefore, I think my biggest challenge now is to know how to incorporate all this knowledge into skills to be able to keep up with nowadays labor market. My challenge in the future will be to make sure my classes give my students all the necessary knowledge and skills at the same time. |