Here is my posting for week 4. I decided to choose the set of questions regarding Application Software. Any comments are welcome. - Ryan
Application Software
1. Compare and contrast types of application software with respect to constructivist and directed instruction theories (or other general learning theories).
I believe that application software falls under the category of Computer Assisted Learning (CAL) where the computers are used as tools. Most conventional tools can be used for many different purposes depending on the need of the user. I see the same being true for application software. Therefore, I would have a hard time classifying a type of application software solely under constructivist or directed instruction theories. Application software such as word processors, spreadsheets, web page design, antivirus tools, search tools, computer mediated communication, simulations, microworlds and cognitive tools for learning could be used in both constructivist and direct instruction settings. It really depends on the teacher’s focus, the learning outcome to be met, and the specific needs of the students.
2. Under what context would you use the various types of application software (i.e. what subject, grade level, setting, student-ability level, etc.)
I believe that application software can be used with any subject at any grade level. Word processors, simulations, and computer mediated communication (e.g. email) can be introduced at the earliest grade levels with great success. As students progress through their education, more complex and diverse software applications can be introduced to help them demonstrate their mastery of the subject matter. Application software can act to level the playing field and permit students with different ability levels to address their various learning styles. Assistive technology (Kurzweill 3000, Dragon Naturally Speaking, etc.,) is currently being provided to students with learning disabilities to allow them to demonstrate and function academically at their learning potential.
I have personally used application software and interactive simulations (Physics - Mechanics Labs, http://www.darngoodsolutions.com/mms/physics.htm) that allow students to explore and hypothesize about physics concepts. By manipulating the variables and observing the results, students can construct new knowledge based on authentic experiments. I have also used cognitive tools for learning such as Inspiration (http://www.inspiration.com) to allow students to design and present concept maps that demonstrate their understanding of a certain topic or theme.
3. What learning theory(ies) are at play for the software applications that have been mentioned during your discussion?
In my academic physics class I try to encourage students to apply higher- order / critical thinking skills that will allow them to improve their problem solving skills. In this way, I hope that they are able to take the information learned in one situation (classroom setting) and apply it to a different situation (real-world setting, lab setting, etc.). The software applications mentioned above allow my students to expand and elaborate on their past experiences and transfer their prior knowledge to a new environment or situation. In this way I believe that constructivism and cognitive flexibility are the learning theories at play.
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Sunday, September 28, 2008
Week 3 Post
1. Using your experiences with one or more software applications, support or refute the statement: "...when students work with computer technologies, instead of being controlled by them, they enhance the capabilities of the computer, and the computer enhances their thinking and learning" (p.31).
While teaching my physics and robotics courses, I try to create situations in which my students will be engaged in critical thinking exercises that will hopefully allow them to explore higher-order thinking practices. I agree with Jonassen’s views that computers and “Mindtools” can be used to enhance student learning and allow them to represent what they know in a more dynamic way. Over the past few years David Ramsay and I have been using PASCO probeware (http://www.pasco.com/physhigh/index.cfm) to enhance the delivery of our grade 11 physics curriculum.
The use of probeware allows students to interpret, visualize, and analyse data that they have collected from real-world experiments. By allowing students to change variables in an authentic environment, they are able to hypothesis and construct meaning from the equations and concepts presented during lectures and from the textbooks. David’s posting refers to experiments that we conduct on collisions. Another example that I’ll offer is a classroom lesson where students measure their voice patterns using the probeware and compare and contrast their voice wavelengths and frequencies with other students, other animals, and other inanimate objects. Of course, this information can simply be read in a table of values from the textbook. However, by allowing the students to create their own tables, and visually represent their own voice patterns the information has more meaning.
I feel that I must also mention that using Mindtools is not always rainbows and sunshine. Research conducted by UPEI on using probeware in our classrooms has indicated that there is a steep initial learning curve when the computer technology is introduced. It has also been recorded that female students generally do not appreciate using the probeware and found that it did not enhance learning but was in fact detrimental to their thinking and learning. Of course, this data is based on small sample-sizes but I believe still has some merit and must be considered when Mindtools are introduced or integrated into curricula.
2. These authors discuss constructivism in this article. Is there a place for direct instruction when using these software applications?
How we construct knowledge depends upon what we already know and the experiences that we have had. If I can build on my previous example of using a Mindtool to represent voice patterns, it would be pointless to ask students to analyse their voice patterns if they had now prior knowledge or experience with the concepts of wavelengths, frequencies and wave behaviour. Therefore I believe that there must be a place for direct instruction to be used to deliver new information to the students. Once students have this information, they can use the software application to construct new meaning and build on their knowledge. Constructivism and scaffolding can only be used after the students have a basic understanding of the concepts. With curriculum outcomes that rely on deductive reasoning, direct instruction is often the best way to introduce new equations and concepts. Once the concepts become part of the students' knowledge base, they can then use software applications that promote constructivism, critical thinking, and problem solving.
3. Briefly summarize your understanding of the learning theory of "Cognitive Flexibility".
Cognitive Flexibility is the ability to gain knowledge of complex subject-matter in one situation and then transfer or apply that knowledge to a different situation. By presenting complex information to students in a variety of different ways and in a variety of different situations, students are better able to transfer their learning to associative or unique situations. Cognitive Flexibility is best suited for complex, non-linear subject matter where a constructivist teaching method would be favoured over a behaviourist approach.
4. What kind of learning theories are being used in this course now? Are you constructing yet?
I believe that this course is being presented in a combination of direct instruction and constructivism. The readings are being used to provide students with the information and content regarding theories in direct instruction, constructivism, behaviourism, and cognitive flexibility. I would interpret providing these basic facts to students as direct instruction. However, in our questions and postings we are asked to build on this information by interpreting it through our own personal experiences, beliefs, and knowledge. In my opinion, this is the heart of a constructivist learning environment. By eliciting personal responses and requiring students to respond to other students’ opinions by citing credible readings, students are constructing and scaffolding new ideas from prior knowledge.
Comments welcome,
Ryan
While teaching my physics and robotics courses, I try to create situations in which my students will be engaged in critical thinking exercises that will hopefully allow them to explore higher-order thinking practices. I agree with Jonassen’s views that computers and “Mindtools” can be used to enhance student learning and allow them to represent what they know in a more dynamic way. Over the past few years David Ramsay and I have been using PASCO probeware (http://www.pasco.com/physhigh/index.cfm) to enhance the delivery of our grade 11 physics curriculum.
The use of probeware allows students to interpret, visualize, and analyse data that they have collected from real-world experiments. By allowing students to change variables in an authentic environment, they are able to hypothesis and construct meaning from the equations and concepts presented during lectures and from the textbooks. David’s posting refers to experiments that we conduct on collisions. Another example that I’ll offer is a classroom lesson where students measure their voice patterns using the probeware and compare and contrast their voice wavelengths and frequencies with other students, other animals, and other inanimate objects. Of course, this information can simply be read in a table of values from the textbook. However, by allowing the students to create their own tables, and visually represent their own voice patterns the information has more meaning.
I feel that I must also mention that using Mindtools is not always rainbows and sunshine. Research conducted by UPEI on using probeware in our classrooms has indicated that there is a steep initial learning curve when the computer technology is introduced. It has also been recorded that female students generally do not appreciate using the probeware and found that it did not enhance learning but was in fact detrimental to their thinking and learning. Of course, this data is based on small sample-sizes but I believe still has some merit and must be considered when Mindtools are introduced or integrated into curricula.
2. These authors discuss constructivism in this article. Is there a place for direct instruction when using these software applications?
How we construct knowledge depends upon what we already know and the experiences that we have had. If I can build on my previous example of using a Mindtool to represent voice patterns, it would be pointless to ask students to analyse their voice patterns if they had now prior knowledge or experience with the concepts of wavelengths, frequencies and wave behaviour. Therefore I believe that there must be a place for direct instruction to be used to deliver new information to the students. Once students have this information, they can use the software application to construct new meaning and build on their knowledge. Constructivism and scaffolding can only be used after the students have a basic understanding of the concepts. With curriculum outcomes that rely on deductive reasoning, direct instruction is often the best way to introduce new equations and concepts. Once the concepts become part of the students' knowledge base, they can then use software applications that promote constructivism, critical thinking, and problem solving.
3. Briefly summarize your understanding of the learning theory of "Cognitive Flexibility".
Cognitive Flexibility is the ability to gain knowledge of complex subject-matter in one situation and then transfer or apply that knowledge to a different situation. By presenting complex information to students in a variety of different ways and in a variety of different situations, students are better able to transfer their learning to associative or unique situations. Cognitive Flexibility is best suited for complex, non-linear subject matter where a constructivist teaching method would be favoured over a behaviourist approach.
4. What kind of learning theories are being used in this course now? Are you constructing yet?
I believe that this course is being presented in a combination of direct instruction and constructivism. The readings are being used to provide students with the information and content regarding theories in direct instruction, constructivism, behaviourism, and cognitive flexibility. I would interpret providing these basic facts to students as direct instruction. However, in our questions and postings we are asked to build on this information by interpreting it through our own personal experiences, beliefs, and knowledge. In my opinion, this is the heart of a constructivist learning environment. By eliciting personal responses and requiring students to respond to other students’ opinions by citing credible readings, students are constructing and scaffolding new ideas from prior knowledge.
Comments welcome,
Ryan
Sunday, September 14, 2008
Week 1-2 Post
1. Thoughts on "The Medium is Not the Meassage"
There can be no argument that distance learning opens doors that would otherwise be left closed to many students. However, the technology used to deliver distance learning programs is merely a means to an end. The worth of these programs lies in their content and the delivery of this content. Technology can facilitate this delivery, and even enhance the content, but it is by no means the framework on which the program should be based. I see the main shortcoming of distance learning that students are less apt to have face-to-face discussions with their classmates and teachers. A case in point could be the asynchronous nature of these online courses. The coursework that we are completing in Information Technology could just as easily be delivered in a more traditional classroom setting with lecture and discussion. I feel fortunate to be able to participate in these online courses through WebCT but I do not believe that the fact that they are delivered through a technological medium increases their worth or efficacy.
2. If you were to choose one particular learning theory that best fits direct instruction, which would it be and why?
In direct instruction, the teacher presents information to the students and expects students to increase their knowledge based on this new information. I believe that the learning theory that best suites this style of teaching is behaviourism. The learner adapts to the new environment by responding to questions with the information provided by the teacher. This likens students to empty pitchers into which knowledge may be poured. It creates a more passive environment where students react to the demands of the teacher. The student is rewarded if he/she can recite the absolute knowledge provided by the teacher. Higher-order thinking and mental processes are not greatly considered in the behaviourism model. I feel that the same can be said for a broad definition of direct instruction where the teacher’s end goal is to deliver new information to the students with the hope that they can repeat this same information on some form of formal assessment.
3. If you were to choose one particular learning theory that best fits the constructivist approach, which would it be and why?
I believe that the best theory that fits the constructivist approach would be the constructivism theories created by Piaget and Vygotsky. Their early works were instrumental in developing the concept of constructivism in which students “in the quest for understanding, link new knowledge to prior knowledge and construct new meaning”. (Arends, 2004, p. 397) This approach allows students to focus on using their prior knowledge and experiences as a guide to increase their knowledge and establish higher- order thinking processes. This exploration will allow student to move forward through their zone of proximal development and learn to the best of their individual abilities.
4. / 5. By drawing upon past life and/or teaching experiences, where has direct instruction and constructivist styles worked for you?
My teaching experiences focus mainly on teaching physics and robotics. Both of these courses have an arranged set of formulas and procedures that must be understood and followed in order for success. It is in introducing these topics that I often put on my “direct instruction” hat. I cannot ask a student to map out the electrical wiring on their robot if he/she has no understanding of the underlying principles of electric circuits. To allow students to go out on their own and work solely on their prior knowledge would be very time consuming (and potentially dangerous!). Explaining the variables in a new physics equation and letting students practice using the new equation with a given set of questions is a very effective means to learn new concepts. However, once the students have the basics down, I put on my constructivist hat (usually in the same class period) and begin to allow students to explore on their own. I challenge them to think where a certain physics concept is relevant or demonstrated in the real world. Now students are able to draw on past experiences and imagine how these new concepts can be manipulated to create new ideas and theories. Open-ended labs and higher-order thinking projects can be created to allow students an opportunity to hypothesize, formulate opinions and test new beliefs without having to worry about delivering the single right answer.
Reference:
Arends, R. (2004). Learning to Teach (6th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Comments welcome, Ryan
There can be no argument that distance learning opens doors that would otherwise be left closed to many students. However, the technology used to deliver distance learning programs is merely a means to an end. The worth of these programs lies in their content and the delivery of this content. Technology can facilitate this delivery, and even enhance the content, but it is by no means the framework on which the program should be based. I see the main shortcoming of distance learning that students are less apt to have face-to-face discussions with their classmates and teachers. A case in point could be the asynchronous nature of these online courses. The coursework that we are completing in Information Technology could just as easily be delivered in a more traditional classroom setting with lecture and discussion. I feel fortunate to be able to participate in these online courses through WebCT but I do not believe that the fact that they are delivered through a technological medium increases their worth or efficacy.
2. If you were to choose one particular learning theory that best fits direct instruction, which would it be and why?
In direct instruction, the teacher presents information to the students and expects students to increase their knowledge based on this new information. I believe that the learning theory that best suites this style of teaching is behaviourism. The learner adapts to the new environment by responding to questions with the information provided by the teacher. This likens students to empty pitchers into which knowledge may be poured. It creates a more passive environment where students react to the demands of the teacher. The student is rewarded if he/she can recite the absolute knowledge provided by the teacher. Higher-order thinking and mental processes are not greatly considered in the behaviourism model. I feel that the same can be said for a broad definition of direct instruction where the teacher’s end goal is to deliver new information to the students with the hope that they can repeat this same information on some form of formal assessment.
3. If you were to choose one particular learning theory that best fits the constructivist approach, which would it be and why?
I believe that the best theory that fits the constructivist approach would be the constructivism theories created by Piaget and Vygotsky. Their early works were instrumental in developing the concept of constructivism in which students “in the quest for understanding, link new knowledge to prior knowledge and construct new meaning”. (Arends, 2004, p. 397) This approach allows students to focus on using their prior knowledge and experiences as a guide to increase their knowledge and establish higher- order thinking processes. This exploration will allow student to move forward through their zone of proximal development and learn to the best of their individual abilities.
4. / 5. By drawing upon past life and/or teaching experiences, where has direct instruction and constructivist styles worked for you?
My teaching experiences focus mainly on teaching physics and robotics. Both of these courses have an arranged set of formulas and procedures that must be understood and followed in order for success. It is in introducing these topics that I often put on my “direct instruction” hat. I cannot ask a student to map out the electrical wiring on their robot if he/she has no understanding of the underlying principles of electric circuits. To allow students to go out on their own and work solely on their prior knowledge would be very time consuming (and potentially dangerous!). Explaining the variables in a new physics equation and letting students practice using the new equation with a given set of questions is a very effective means to learn new concepts. However, once the students have the basics down, I put on my constructivist hat (usually in the same class period) and begin to allow students to explore on their own. I challenge them to think where a certain physics concept is relevant or demonstrated in the real world. Now students are able to draw on past experiences and imagine how these new concepts can be manipulated to create new ideas and theories. Open-ended labs and higher-order thinking projects can be created to allow students an opportunity to hypothesize, formulate opinions and test new beliefs without having to worry about delivering the single right answer.
Reference:
Arends, R. (2004). Learning to Teach (6th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Comments welcome, Ryan
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
