Assignment: Briefly describe a situation in which you have encouraged people to use a new technology and have been met with resistance or disappointing results. What attitudes did these people exhibit? What behaviors did they demonstrate? Using Keller’s ARCS model, describe how you could change the motivation of these people, or learners, to encourage success.
Response: According to John Keller’s ARCS Model of Motivational Design, there are four steps for promoting and sustaining motivation in the learning process: Attention, Relevance, Confidence, and Satisfaction (ARCS). As I reflect back to when I was an independent consultant, I was trying to land a contract with the “City of Irving, Texas”. They had a need to train staff across multiple business units on new hardware and software platforms. Their old systems were quite antiquated and the motivation to learn new technology was extremely low! They wanted to train their employees online to save money and expedite the learning process. With a very commendable turn-over rate, the City had employees with majority tenures of more than 20 years. Although a very stable environment, along with employee tenure was the fear of learning new technologies and possibly being exposed or branded as a less than a satisfactory employee if they couldn't navigate online courses (Most were baby boomers). The first step to launching this project was to identify “Champions” to advocate the advantages of taking an online course— Gain credibility and present a value proposition. The Champions were instructed to communicate the variety of options that would be available for course delivery and that the project took into consideration different learning styled (e.g. use of videos, short lectures, mini-discussion groups).
Once the “Champions” were identified, they were the first to take the training so that they could minister to those who were weary of taking the leap. Brain-storming sessions were facilitated to gather feedback in terms of how to get all participants on-board. Once the advocates provided risk analysis in terms of deploying the training, small pilot groups were introduced to the course materials, followed by surveys for improvement. The pilot groups then became evangelist. Role Plays based on transition, mini lectures and discussion groups were formed to support the process. The future participant’s were individually interview, and told the value of learning online (e.g., privacy, easy access, on demand learning). Multiple modalities were available in terms of training formats. Participants were told how online training would make them more competitive in the work place, support was available each step of the way, and possibly position them for higher rankings within their divisions. Ultimately, the participants felt that they were being heavily supported, their competency levels were being elevated and the training complemented their existing skill-set. The participants felt they had some “say” in the process of learning and confident that it would improve their work environment.The final grade or approval rate was equivalent to “A-“.
Sondra
Reference
Keller, J. M. (1987). Development and use of the ARCS model of motivational design. Journal of Instructional Development, 10(3), 2 – 10.
Learning – Theories.com. (2010). ARCS Model of Motivational Design (Keller). Retrieved on November 8th, 2010. From http://www.learning-theories.com/kellers-arcs-model-of-motivational-design.html
Monday, November 8, 2010
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
Connectivism
Reflection: As I think back in terms of how I and others learned perhaps twenty years ago,it is evident that different approaches and personal skills are needed to learn effectively in today's society. For example, the ability to see connections between fields, ideas, and concepts is a core skill.Both organizational and personal learning are integrated tasks which weave the networks of learning together. Connectivism attempts to provide an understanding of how both learners and organizations learn as demonstrated through the many resources now utilized as part of their networks. I've been introduced to so many tools over the last few years, I think that the most useful at this time would be my networking community via linkedin. It has allowed me to connect with business professionals, alumni from old colleges, family and friends. Additionally, it has been the main pipeline in terms of job searches.
Reference
Siemens, G. (2005).Connectivism: A learning theory for a digital age. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 2(1). Retrieved October 22nd, 2010 from http://www.itdl.org/Journal/Jan_05/article01.htm
Friday, October 15, 2010
Collaboration (Howard Rheingold)
Mod3_WK5-6
Question:
Do you believe that humans have a basic instinct to “interact and work as a group,” as Rheingold proposed in his discussion of the evolution of Wikipedia as a collectively developed encyclopedia? How can technology facilitate collaboration among learners based on constructivist principles?
Response:
Rheingold alludes to the fact that humans succeed through collaborative effort and when they all work in concert. I tend to agree with this statement. The evolution of Open Universities and Open software resources (e.g., UNIX etc) support the fact that there is a consistent effort for people wanting to work in harmony. Secondly, technology can facilitate the exchange of information and expanded access to a global environment – hence collaboration. The constructivist approach to learning is facilitated by the internet because the theory focuses on making connections and making meaning in the learning process.Technology such as the internet links together individuals who share common goals and interest. As an instructional tool, the internet enables distance learning by connecting people separated by time and space. It promotes peer learning by bringing learners together in the same space so that they can share their knowledge and insights, communicating with each other to help each other learn. If supported by effective communications, groups of different sexes, mixed cultures, varying learning styles, abilities, socioeconomic status, and age can bring a wealth of knowledge and perspective to authentic, challenging tasks. Effective communications is critical to knowledge construction. If web-based courses are designed with a constructivist approach in mind, the learners will be encouraged through self-directed learning. They will perform critical analysis through exploring an expanded environment. Learners are engaged, and reflect on their experiences and they navigate, create and construct their own unique knowledge bases.
References
Driscoll, Mary P. (2005). Psychology of Learning for Instruction. (3rd ed). Boston, MA: Pearson Publishing
Rheingold, H. (2008, February): Howard Rheingold on collaboration. [Video file]. Retrieved on October 12th, 2010 from http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/howard_rheingold_on_collaboration.html
Sunday, September 19, 2010
Cognitivism as a Learning Theory: isms-as-filter-not-blinker
Beall-Davis_S
EDUC-8845_WK3-4_Mod2As I think about learning theories and the analogy of where each play a role in the learning arena, Bill Kerr (2007) and Karl Kapps (2006) blog discussions really sparked some interesting points in terms of learning theories (e.g., ism’s). Behaviourism focuses on conditioning – classical conditioning or operant responses. Depending on the environment or scenario, behavior is modified. It’s an automatic type of learning in which a stimulus evokes a response that was originally evoked by another stimulus. There is also a reward system or some form of penalty associated with the stimulus. So what if the selected stimulus doesn’t work or changes the behavior? What next?
Weight loss programs are great examples of behaviorism, but what do I know? I’m not only a "Jenny Craig" dropout, but "Weight Watchers" too! There were lots of reinforcements along with the perceived notion that at the end of the program I would lose pounds or never again wear a “little” black dress. Should there have been other elements in the program that focused more on what would make me a success? Perhaps one which focused on cognitivism, connectivism or constructivism?
When referencing cognitivism, the argument is that the mind itself should be opened and understood (e.g., black box). The learner is viewed as an information processor, similar to the central processing unit (CPU) of a computer, yet vulnerable to human error (e.g., garbage in garbage out). Unlike behaviorism, cognitivism advocates that there is an intervening variable between environment and behavior. Could there indeed be an element of this theory that could have been applied in conjunction with behaviorism that could have possibly led to my quest to lose weight? In fact, many of Jean Piaget’s stages of cognitive development (e.g., sensorimotor, preoperational, concrete operation and formal operational) proved to have flaws and were challenged. One example was his proclaiming “the sequence of stages is culturally invariant, with formal operations inevitably reached”. It was later discovered that not all cultures showed evidence of formal operations (Driscoll, M., 2005). Would this approach better serve the learning community if it were integrated with other approaches when needed? Is it justifiable to declared one as being superior to the other? The “cream of the crop” ? Perhaps “one size fits all” ?
Constructivism supports the views that people actively construct or create their own subjective representations of objective reality. New information is linked to prior knowledge, thus mental representations are subjective. In my opinion, this too could have been incorporated in my quest for weight loss. Although connectivism was not addressed, at this point it doesn’t seem necessary to continue on. I guess what I’m trying to say is that all of the theories have pros and cons, therefore each must be applied where necessary rather as standalone's or in conjunction!
References
Driscoll, M. (2005). Psychology of Learning for Instruction. Pearson Education, Inc
Kapp, K. (2006). Design: Behaviorism Has Its Place. Retrieved on September 19th, 2010 from http://karlkapp.blogspot.com/2006/12/design-behaviorism-has-its-place.html
Kerr, B. (2007). Isms as a filter, not a blinker. Retrieved on September 19th, 2010 from http://billkerr2.blogspot.com/2007/01/isms-as-filter-not-blinker.html
Behavioral and Cognitive Theories:
Beall-Davis_S
EDUC-8845_WK3 (Discussion): Cognitive and Behaviorist Learning:
Question: As you reflect on the differences between cognitive and behaviorist learning theories, which theory do you consider as a more realistic view of how people learn?
Response: As advances in technology create new opportunities for education, it is important to use a range of theoretical perspectives to optimize the use of new technology in teaching and learning. Behaviorism and cognitive theories are the two dominant theoretical positions in the field of learning with interactive courseware (Jonassen, 1991; Atkins, 1993; Hannafin, Hannafin, Hooper, Rieber, & Kini, 1996). Early computer-based materials are seen to be influenced by behaviorist concepts while discovery learning materials are felt to be founded on later cognitive models of information processing and constructivism. Both behavioral and cognitive views have pros and cons, yet somehow complement one another. Most commonly, designers adopt mixed approaches to design because it offers flexibility (Atkins, 1993). Cognitive and behavioral theories both focus on “What is learned” when learning takes place. The Behaviorists focus on “Specifications”, whereas those who support cognition theories focus more on “Mental Representations”.
Although instructional systems technology began rejecting many behaviorist assumptions in the 1980's in favor of the cognitivist view (Jonassen, 1991), the theory is the basis for innovations such as computer assisted instruction, mastery learning, minimal competency testing, educational accountability, situated cognition, and even social constructivism. Many designers assume that an instructional strategy that has had a certain effect in the past will do so again (Burton, Moore, & Magliano, 1996). Learners learn by doing, experiencing, and engaging in trial and error. A second assumption of behaviorism is that learning is a change in behavior due to stimulus or response events (e.g., experience). When my youngest son received less than acceptable grades in elementary school, I offered to pay him $10.00 for very “A” he received. His approach in terms of accomplishment changed (e.g., behavior) from “C” grades to “A” and “B” grades. Did he learn or did he simply comply with the obvious rewards?
In behaviorism, learning involves the formation of associations between stimuli in the environment. These stimuli may either precede or follow the action (e.g., antecedents vs. consequences). Behaviorists use habit and drive variables to explain behavior but may omit references to mental states. Cognition theories on the other hand, references learning that takes place in the mind, versus that of behaviorism. It involves the formation of mental representations of the elements of a task and the relationships between those elements. Latent learning is a prime example of the cognitive theory. It is learning that occurs, but you don't really see it until there is some reinforcement or incentive to demonstrate it. For example, for years I watched my mom fry chicken and when I turned 15 she told me it was time for me to go in the kitchen because she had taken on a second job, she was unavailable to help me the first time, I simply had to regurgitate what I’d seen since I was 2 or 3yrs old. I fried the chicken (perhaps not as good as she, but I fried it). The key to successful learning using the cognitive model is the quality of processing that occurs while actively engaging with subject matter (Atkins, 1993). In terms of which theory is better, it depends on what cues are available.
References
Atkins, M.J. (1993). Theories of learning and multimedia applications: An overview. Research Papers in Education, 8(2), 251-271.
Burton, J.K., Moore, D.M., & Magliano, S.G. (1996). Behaviorism and instructional technology. In D.H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook for research for educational communications and technology (pp. 46-73). New York: Simon & Schuster Macmillan. ISBN: 0028646630.
Driscoll, M., (2005). Psychology of Learning For Instruction. Pearson Education, Inc.
Green, C., ( 2010). Classics in the History of Psychology. York University, Toronto, Ontario. Retrieved on September 19th, 2010 from http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Skinner/Theories/
Hannafin, M., Hannafin, K., Hooper, S., Rieber, L., & Kini, A. (1996). Research and research with emerging technologies. In D.H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook for research for educational communications and technology (pp. 378-402). New York: Simon & Schuster Macmillan.
Jonassen, D.H. (1991). Objectivism versus constructivism: Do we need a new philosophical paradigm? Educational Technology Research and Development, 39(3), 5-14.
Note: Also posted in Walden discussion room.
EDUC-8845_WK3 (Discussion): Cognitive and Behaviorist Learning:
Question: As you reflect on the differences between cognitive and behaviorist learning theories, which theory do you consider as a more realistic view of how people learn?
Response: As advances in technology create new opportunities for education, it is important to use a range of theoretical perspectives to optimize the use of new technology in teaching and learning. Behaviorism and cognitive theories are the two dominant theoretical positions in the field of learning with interactive courseware (Jonassen, 1991; Atkins, 1993; Hannafin, Hannafin, Hooper, Rieber, & Kini, 1996). Early computer-based materials are seen to be influenced by behaviorist concepts while discovery learning materials are felt to be founded on later cognitive models of information processing and constructivism. Both behavioral and cognitive views have pros and cons, yet somehow complement one another. Most commonly, designers adopt mixed approaches to design because it offers flexibility (Atkins, 1993). Cognitive and behavioral theories both focus on “What is learned” when learning takes place. The Behaviorists focus on “Specifications”, whereas those who support cognition theories focus more on “Mental Representations”.
Although instructional systems technology began rejecting many behaviorist assumptions in the 1980's in favor of the cognitivist view (Jonassen, 1991), the theory is the basis for innovations such as computer assisted instruction, mastery learning, minimal competency testing, educational accountability, situated cognition, and even social constructivism. Many designers assume that an instructional strategy that has had a certain effect in the past will do so again (Burton, Moore, & Magliano, 1996). Learners learn by doing, experiencing, and engaging in trial and error. A second assumption of behaviorism is that learning is a change in behavior due to stimulus or response events (e.g., experience). When my youngest son received less than acceptable grades in elementary school, I offered to pay him $10.00 for very “A” he received. His approach in terms of accomplishment changed (e.g., behavior) from “C” grades to “A” and “B” grades. Did he learn or did he simply comply with the obvious rewards?
In behaviorism, learning involves the formation of associations between stimuli in the environment. These stimuli may either precede or follow the action (e.g., antecedents vs. consequences). Behaviorists use habit and drive variables to explain behavior but may omit references to mental states. Cognition theories on the other hand, references learning that takes place in the mind, versus that of behaviorism. It involves the formation of mental representations of the elements of a task and the relationships between those elements. Latent learning is a prime example of the cognitive theory. It is learning that occurs, but you don't really see it until there is some reinforcement or incentive to demonstrate it. For example, for years I watched my mom fry chicken and when I turned 15 she told me it was time for me to go in the kitchen because she had taken on a second job, she was unavailable to help me the first time, I simply had to regurgitate what I’d seen since I was 2 or 3yrs old. I fried the chicken (perhaps not as good as she, but I fried it). The key to successful learning using the cognitive model is the quality of processing that occurs while actively engaging with subject matter (Atkins, 1993). In terms of which theory is better, it depends on what cues are available.
References
Atkins, M.J. (1993). Theories of learning and multimedia applications: An overview. Research Papers in Education, 8(2), 251-271.
Burton, J.K., Moore, D.M., & Magliano, S.G. (1996). Behaviorism and instructional technology. In D.H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook for research for educational communications and technology (pp. 46-73). New York: Simon & Schuster Macmillan. ISBN: 0028646630.
Driscoll, M., (2005). Psychology of Learning For Instruction. Pearson Education, Inc.
Green, C., ( 2010). Classics in the History of Psychology. York University, Toronto, Ontario. Retrieved on September 19th, 2010 from http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Skinner/Theories/
Hannafin, M., Hannafin, K., Hooper, S., Rieber, L., & Kini, A. (1996). Research and research with emerging technologies. In D.H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook for research for educational communications and technology (pp. 378-402). New York: Simon & Schuster Macmillan.
Jonassen, D.H. (1991). Objectivism versus constructivism: Do we need a new philosophical paradigm? Educational Technology Research and Development, 39(3), 5-14.
Note: Also posted in Walden discussion room.
Sunday, September 12, 2010
EDUC-8845_WK2
EDUC-8845_MOD1_WK2:
Module 1 Blog Topics (Select One):
1). What are your beliefs about how people learn best? What is the purpose of learning theory in educational technology?
2). What are the critical elements of a learning theory? Did Driscoll and Siemens miss any key questions or criteria? Provide a thoughtful critique of their discussion of learning theory.
3).Critique Siemens’s “metaphors of educators.” Which of these metaphors best describes the role you believe an instructor should take in a digital classroom or workplace? Is there a better metaphor to reflect your view of the role of instructors?
For the first assignment due WK2, I have chosen to post my opinion for question #3. Please review my response below:
Learning and Instruction in a Digital World
“Learning and Knowing in Networks” written by Siemens in 2008 presents metaphors of the evolving roles of teachers. He provides a roadmap which suggests the need to reconfigure, revamp and reconstruct our thoughts in terms of the roles that teacher will play as they align themselves with the digital age.
Ironically, most teachers’ live and breathe metaphors. It’s as natural as rain! As I think back to high school years, recollections of consistently being told that “Learning was a journey” ring through my head. It didn’t mean much at the time, but as I put it into perspective (i.e., retrospect) my teacher’s navigated me through varying paths towards knowledge. At times they allowed me to venture off into uncharted territories, things that were beyond the scope of the lectures, topics that interested me, followed by querying my findings and clarifying my understanding. They preached of fulfillments when they knew a student benefitted from their efforts. Although sometimes burdensome, they each played a significant role in the process of my getting a formalized education.
According to Lakeoff and Johnson (1980), the essence of a metaphor focuses on understanding and experiencing one thin g in terms of another. Could and alternative name for the role of the educator be that of a tour guide or agent for knowledge? One who maps out a predefined territory, and insures the student stops and pay attention to important landmarks? With aspiration of someday being recognized as a renowned scholar, my metaphor (e.g., tour guide) seems reasonably fair.
Siemens (2008), discusses four metaphors to describe models of the evolving educator and learner roles based on John Seely Brown’s impression of future educators being more effective in the roles of studio or atelier (2006), Clarence Fisher portraying them as network administrators (n.d.), Curtis Bonks perception of them filling the role of concierge (2007) and his own impression of them evolving as curator’s. All notions prompted by a now technologically enabled era.
Systematically approaching learning, being viewed as the master, yet encouraging creativity and collaboration is representative of the model of studio or atelier. Blogs are very good examples of this particular model. Secondly, the Network Administrator encourages the students to freely construct networks of learning. They are self-directed conceptual learners who are encouraged to reflect on the learning experience in its entirety. Students are better positioned to elevate their competency levels, meet objectives and outcomes based on specific courses. Educators address gaps in the learning network along with learner evaluations. The concierge model insinuates that the role of the educator is simply to provide resources or learning opportunities that the learner may not be aware of (Siemens, 2008).
Although my metaphor in terms of how the future role of the educator could evolve, Siemens himself provides a well-rounded solution where the educator is a curatorial teacher. This role describes the future educator as an expert who allows the freedom of discovery and opportunity, yet structure when needed whilst learners are pursuing disciplines of choice. According to Siemens (2008),” instead of dispensing knowledge, the curator creates spaces in which knowledge can be created, explored, and connected”. This indeed appears to be a better choice to insure that our educators effectively meet the demands mandate by the digital age and its learners!
References
Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M. (1980) Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago.
Siemens, G. (2008). Learning and knowing in networks: Changing roles for educators and designers. Paper presented to ITFORUM. Retrieved on September 12th, 2010 from http://it.coe.uga.edu/itforum/Paper105/Siemens.pdf
Siemens, G., (2008). New structures and spaces of learning: The systemic impact of connective knowledge, connectivism, and networked learning. University of Manitoba Braga, Portugal. Retrieved on September 15th, 2010 from http://elearnspace.org/Articles/systemic_impact.htm
Walden, J. (2010). Metaphors of Education. Retrieved on September 12th, 2010 from http://jeffwaldenblog.wordpress.com/2010/09/14/metaphors-of-educators/
Module 1 Blog Topics (Select One):
1). What are your beliefs about how people learn best? What is the purpose of learning theory in educational technology?
2). What are the critical elements of a learning theory? Did Driscoll and Siemens miss any key questions or criteria? Provide a thoughtful critique of their discussion of learning theory.
3).Critique Siemens’s “metaphors of educators.” Which of these metaphors best describes the role you believe an instructor should take in a digital classroom or workplace? Is there a better metaphor to reflect your view of the role of instructors?
For the first assignment due WK2, I have chosen to post my opinion for question #3. Please review my response below:
Learning and Instruction in a Digital World
“Learning and Knowing in Networks” written by Siemens in 2008 presents metaphors of the evolving roles of teachers. He provides a roadmap which suggests the need to reconfigure, revamp and reconstruct our thoughts in terms of the roles that teacher will play as they align themselves with the digital age.
Ironically, most teachers’ live and breathe metaphors. It’s as natural as rain! As I think back to high school years, recollections of consistently being told that “Learning was a journey” ring through my head. It didn’t mean much at the time, but as I put it into perspective (i.e., retrospect) my teacher’s navigated me through varying paths towards knowledge. At times they allowed me to venture off into uncharted territories, things that were beyond the scope of the lectures, topics that interested me, followed by querying my findings and clarifying my understanding. They preached of fulfillments when they knew a student benefitted from their efforts. Although sometimes burdensome, they each played a significant role in the process of my getting a formalized education.
According to Lakeoff and Johnson (1980), the essence of a metaphor focuses on understanding and experiencing one thin g in terms of another. Could and alternative name for the role of the educator be that of a tour guide or agent for knowledge? One who maps out a predefined territory, and insures the student stops and pay attention to important landmarks? With aspiration of someday being recognized as a renowned scholar, my metaphor (e.g., tour guide) seems reasonably fair.
Siemens (2008), discusses four metaphors to describe models of the evolving educator and learner roles based on John Seely Brown’s impression of future educators being more effective in the roles of studio or atelier (2006), Clarence Fisher portraying them as network administrators (n.d.), Curtis Bonks perception of them filling the role of concierge (2007) and his own impression of them evolving as curator’s. All notions prompted by a now technologically enabled era.
Systematically approaching learning, being viewed as the master, yet encouraging creativity and collaboration is representative of the model of studio or atelier. Blogs are very good examples of this particular model. Secondly, the Network Administrator encourages the students to freely construct networks of learning. They are self-directed conceptual learners who are encouraged to reflect on the learning experience in its entirety. Students are better positioned to elevate their competency levels, meet objectives and outcomes based on specific courses. Educators address gaps in the learning network along with learner evaluations. The concierge model insinuates that the role of the educator is simply to provide resources or learning opportunities that the learner may not be aware of (Siemens, 2008).
Although my metaphor in terms of how the future role of the educator could evolve, Siemens himself provides a well-rounded solution where the educator is a curatorial teacher. This role describes the future educator as an expert who allows the freedom of discovery and opportunity, yet structure when needed whilst learners are pursuing disciplines of choice. According to Siemens (2008),” instead of dispensing knowledge, the curator creates spaces in which knowledge can be created, explored, and connected”. This indeed appears to be a better choice to insure that our educators effectively meet the demands mandate by the digital age and its learners!
References
Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M. (1980) Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago.
Siemens, G. (2008). Learning and knowing in networks: Changing roles for educators and designers. Paper presented to ITFORUM. Retrieved on September 12th, 2010 from http://it.coe.uga.edu/itforum/Paper105/Siemens.pdf
Siemens, G., (2008). New structures and spaces of learning: The systemic impact of connective knowledge, connectivism, and networked learning. University of Manitoba Braga, Portugal. Retrieved on September 15th, 2010 from http://elearnspace.org/Articles/systemic_impact.htm
Walden, J. (2010). Metaphors of Education. Retrieved on September 12th, 2010 from http://jeffwaldenblog.wordpress.com/2010/09/14/metaphors-of-educators/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)