Connectivism and Social Learning in Practice

            This week, in the course text Using Technology with Classroom Instruction that Works, I explored an instructional strategy that embeds technology: “Cooperative Learning”.  While investigating this strategy, I reflected on how it correlates with the principles of social learning theories.  This week, through my Walden University resources, I studied two main social learning theories.  These social learning theories include social constructivism, and connectivism.  Moreover, I examined several social networking and collaboration tools and reviewed their correlation to cooperative learning as well as the social learning theories that I explored.

            As described by Dr. Michael Orey, in the media segment Social Learning Theories, social constructivism addresses the significant roles culture and collaboration play in student learning (Laureate Education, Inc., 2011). Social constructivism, “emphasizes the importance of culture and context in understanding what occurs in society and constructing knowledge based on this understanding” (Kim, 2001, para. 8).  Social constructivism roots from constructivist ideals, and requires students to become actively engaged in constructing external artifacts.  Additionally, social constructivism emphasizes the importance of creating artifacts through conversation and collaboration with others (Laureate Education, Inc., 2011).  The origins of social constructivism were first articulated by social learning theorist Lev Vygotsky.  Vygotsky, and fellow social learning theorist Albert Bandura, believed that learning resulted from the “collaboration of a group of learners in an effort to construct a common core of knowledge” (Lever-Duffy & McDonald, 2008, p. 18).  Vygotsky’s theory centered around two main learning components, the zone of proximal development and the more knowledgeable other.  The zone of proximal development, or ZPD, is the level at which a student is able to learn.  Based on their readiness and ability, each student has acquired their own ZPD, a place where learning is most comfortable.  The more knowledge other, or MKO, is an individual who can assist a student or students, in understanding and learning beyond their zone of proximal development (Laureate Education, Inc., 2011).  Dr. Orey states that a more knowledge other can be a teacher, parent, peer, or in some cases a computer (Laureate Education, Inc., 2011). 

            Social learning theories place a strong emphasis on collaboration, which is a key component of cooperative learning.  Cooperative learning is an instructional strategy that “focuses on having students interact with each other in groups in ways that enhance their learning” (Pitler, Hubbell, Kuhn, & Malenoski, 2007, 139).  Cooperative learning groups should be small in size, and can be organized in a variety of ways both formally and informally (Pitler et al., 2007).  When facilitating cooperative learning in my classroom, I use a variety of strategies and criteria to group my students.  At times, I create groups at random by picking popsicle sticks, with students’ names on them, out of a cup.  Other times, I group students by ability, placing a high, medium, and low student in each group.  Later in the year, I sometimes allow students to form their own cooperative learning groups.  I find it best to use a variety of strategies to pick my cooperative learning groups.  The strategy I choose is often dependent on the type of activity students are going to do.

            One structure of grouping that I enjoy implementing most is Jigsaw groups.  As described by Dr. Michael Orey, Jigsaw grouping allows the students to become the teachers (Laureate Education, Inc., 2011).  When structuring these types of groups, students must first be placed into a main or central group.  Afterward, they are then split up into what I call “expert” groups.  While in their expert groups, students are given a topic to study or research.  After researching the assigned topic and creating a correlating artifact with their expert group, each student must report back to their central group.  Once back in their central groups, students take turns using their artifact to teach their fellow group mates.  Students are excited to have the opportunity to teach their peers.  In the media segment Social Learning Theories, Dr. Orey reminds us that one of the most powerful ways to learn something is by teaching it (Laureate Education, Inc., 2011). 

            Several forms of technology can be integrated into cooperative learning, including multimedia, web resources, collaborative organizers, and communication software (Pitler et al., 2007).  Blogs and wikis are just two examples of communication software that can assist students in collaboratively working together.  Both blogs and wiki spaces give students the ability to work together, while being physically apart from one another.  With new technology, students are able to work with others outside their class, and are given limitless possibilities which allow them to stretch the boundaries of communication to other students around the world. 

            This week I utilized a technological tool that is ideal for cooperative learning, a VoiceThread.  VoiceThread, is similar to a PowerPoint in that it allows its creator to generate slides that can include images, documents or videos.  Futhremore, VoiceThread incorporates comments from the creator and its visitors, which can be made by audio, text, or phone!  Below is a link to my VoiceThread which discusses issues that surround cyber bullying.  Check it out, and let me know your thoughts!

VoiceThread Link:http://voicethread.com/share/3269703/  

                         

            Below my list of references I have included some additional resources related to social learning theories and cooperative learning.  Please scroll down  and enjoy!

References:

Kim, B. (2001). Social Constructivism.. In M. Orey (Ed.), Emerging perspectives on learning, teaching, and technology. Retrieved <July 2012>, from http://projects.coe.uga.edu/epltt/

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

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

Additional Resources to Explore!

(To view, please click on the blue links)

VoiceThread.com: If you would like to make your own VoiceThread, click the VoiceThread link and sign up for free.  The site is user friendly and is a great tool to collaborated with others.

Wikis: Wikis provide students and teachers with a fun and easy way to work together, even when you can not physically be together!  I utilized a wikis in my last grad school course, and I loved it!

The Jigsaw Approach Brings Lessons to Life: This article, from Education World, goes into further dept regarding the use of Jigsaw groups.  It discusses the benefits of Jigsaw grouping and gives some excellent examples of how other teachers have implemented this cooperative learning strategy in their classrooms.

Constructivism in Practice:

            This week, in the course text Using Technology with Classroom Instruction that Works, I explored an instructional strategy that embeds technology: “Generating and Testing Hypotheses”, and its correlation with the principles of constructivist-constructionist learning theories. Jean Piaget, perhaps one of the earliest constructivist, theorized that “children construct mental maps as they encounter information” (Lever-Duffy & McDonald, 2008, p. 17).  These mental maps, or schemas, are created and altered when new information is assimilated or accommodated.  (Lever-Duffy & McDonald, 2008).  As described by Dr. Michael Orey, in the media segment Constructionist and Constructivist Learning Theories, information is assimilated when an individual is able to process information and fit it into what they already know.  In contrast, when individuals are presented with a new way of thinking, and are unable to fit in into a preexisting schema, that information must be accommodated (Laureate Education, Inc., 2011). 

            Constructivist and constructionist learning theories promote teachers as facilitators and a “learner-oriented learning environment” (Han & Bhattacharya, 2001, para. 15).  Constructivist theorists, such as the late Jean Piaget and current theorist Seymour Papert, believe that “knowledge is a constructed element resulting from the learning process . . . [and] is unique to the individual who constructs it” (Lever-Duffy & McDonald, 2008, p. 16).  Thus, each individual’s schema and learning is specialized and based on their own life encounters and experiences.  Currently, constructivism ideals are the “most influential force in shaping contemporary education” (Lever-Duffy & McDonald, 2008, p. 17). 

            The constructionist approach is similar in that “constructionism supports the constructivist viewpoint--that the learner is an active builder of knowledge” (Han & Bhattacharya, 2001, para. 11).  Moreover, constructionist learning theorists support the idea that individuals learn best when they create something they can share with others, a product known as an artifact (Laureate Education, Inc., 2011).  Thanks to new technology, the degrees of artifacts are seemingly endless.  From word processing documents to PowerPoint presentations, technology has opened doors to an array of artifacts that promote creativity and student engagement.  In addition to the production of artifacts, construtionism also sustains the employment of specified goals and expectations.  By doing so, students are better able to understand relevance of a lesson as well as the level of achievement that must be met.  Additionally, learners must be introduced to multiple strategies that will aide in solving problems that may be encountered (Han & Bhattacharya, 2001). 

            One instructional strategy that correlates with the constructionist approach is generating and testing hypotheses.  Although generating and testing hypotheses is generally associated with science is can be utilized in across all content areas (Pitler, Hubbell, Kuhn, & Malenoski, 2007).  Through this instructional strategy students are engaged in “complex mental processes, applying content knowledge like facts and vocabulary, and enhancing their overall understanding of content” (Pitler et al., 2007, 202).  Constructionist views of learning, and generating and testing hypotheses support experimental inquiry, analyzing data and problem solving.  When generating and testing hypotheses, technology has the ability to play a fundamental role in reducing time spent on gathering data, while allowing more sufficient time for data interpretation (Pitler et al., 2007).  Through the use of spreadsheet software, online data collection tools and various web resources students are able to effectively manage their time and apply it to the skills that matters most.  Interpreting data is an essential 21^st century skill that is imperative in the world outside of the classroom.

            An additional educational technology resource that can help support generating and testing hypotheses and the constructionist learning approach are WebQuests. WebQuests are “inquiry-oriented activities that allow students in a class or form multiple locations to work together to learn about a particular subject or to tackle a particular project or problem” (Pitler et al., 2007, 145).  Not only can students venture on WebQuests but they can create WebQuests of their very own!  By incorporating WebQuests teachers can take on the role as facilitator while actively engaging their students in problem-based activities.  This week, I explored WebQuest.Org.  This site, which was recommended by my professor, provides educators with various links to find, create, and share WebQuests.

            Next year, I am looking forward to implementing new technology to help my students take control of their learning.  I hope to maintain the ideals of constructionists and help elevate learned helplessness amongst my students.  To do so, I will challenge them with problem and project-based instruction and provide them with the knowledge to undertake multiple instructional strategies such as generating and testing hypotheses. 

            Please check out some additional resources related to constructivist-constructionist learning theories as well as generating and testing hypotheses.  They can be found after the reference list. Enjoy!

References:

Han, S., and Bhattacharya, K. (2001). Constructionism, Learning by Design, and Project Based Learning. In M. Orey (Ed.), Emerging perspectives on learning, teaching, and technology. Retrieved <insert date>, from http://projects.coe.uga.edu/epltt/

Laureate Education, Inc. (Producer). (2011). Program seven: Constructionist and constructivist learning theories [Video webcast]. Bridging learning theory, instruction and technology. Retrieved from http://laureate.ecollege.com/ec/crs/default.learn?CourseID=5700267&CPURL=laureate.ecollege.com&Survey=1&47=2594577&ClientNodeID=984650&coursenav=0&bhcp=1

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

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

Additional Resources to Explore!

WebQuest.Org – This site, which was suggestion by my professor, is an excellent resource which can be used to find, create, and share various WebQuests.

Elementary Student WebQuests – This site provides a list of links that lead to various interactive web pages and WebQuests that are geared toward students grades K-6. 

Prezi – Similarly to PowerPoint, Prezi allows teachers and students to display and present information in a creative way.  Although similar to PowerPoint, Prezi is more free form and can accommodate images as well as videos.  I highly recommend making your next presentation with Prezi!

Cognitivism in Practice:

           This week, through my Walden University resources, I explored several instructional strategies that correlate with the principles of cognitive learning theory.  Cognitive learning theory focuses on “learning as a mental operation that takes place when information enters through the senses, undergoes mental manipulation, is stored and is finally used” (Lever-Duffy & McDonald, 2008, p.16).  Unlike principles of behaviorist learning theory, which focuses on measurable external behaviors, cognitive learning theory highlights mental activity (Lever-Duffy & McDonald, 2008).  Located at the heart of cognitive learning theory is the information processing model.  As described by Dr. Michael Orey, the most important pieces of the information processing model, for learning, instruction, and technology, is short and long-term memory (Laureate Education, Inc., 2011). 

            In the course text, Understanding Technology with Classroom Instruction that Works, I studied a variety of instructional strategies that help store information in the short-term memory as well as transfer that knowledge into the long-term memory.  To start, cues, questions and advanced organizers are key instructional strategies used to help students “retrieve, use and organize information about a topic” (Pitler et al., 2007, p.73).  Often times, teachers use cues and questions to guide students through a lesson, while assisting them in “accessing prior knowledge” (Pitler et al., 2007, p.73).  In my own classroom, I often pose questions and cue students by performing a Think Aloud.  By doing so, students are better able to connect new content to preexisting knowledge stored in their long-term memory.  Often times, I am able to access students’ prior knowledge by working with them to create a KWL.  The KWL draws upon what the students know, what they what to know, and later what they have learned.  Though cueing and questioning, I am able to effectively facilitate and complete the KWL with my students. 

            In addition to cues and questions, advanced organizers help students to hone in on essential information.  Advanced organizers are “structures that teachers provide to students before a learning activity to help them classify and make sense of content” (Pitler et al., 2007, p.73).  With the use of technology, advanced organizers are easy to create, organize, and manipulate.  Software such as Excel, Kidspiration, Word, PowerPoint and Inspiration allow advanced organizers to be more interactive and visually appealing (Pitler et al., 2007).  As stated by Dr. Orey, in the media segment Cognitive Learning Theories, Paivio’s dual coding hypothesis indicates that individuals store things as images and text (Laureate Education, Inc., 2011).  Utilizing advanced organizers also helps students to elaborate or make connections.  Research shows that elaboration is a primary mechanism for storing information in one’s long-term memory (Laureate Education, Inc., 2011).

            Advanced organizers are frequently utilized in my classroom.  During Word Study, for example, students are required to complete an advanced organizer for each new word list.  Within the advanced organizer, students must write the word, its definition, and draw an illustration.  While illustrating, the students are free to draw their own representation of the word.  Thus, the illustrations are individual to each student.  For instance, if the word was “awesome”, I might decide to draw fireworks, while someone else might choose to draw a huge ice cream Sunday, it is based purely on the experiences of that individual. 

            Advanced organizers can also be used when summarizing and note taking.  “The instructional strategy summarizing and note taking focuses on enhancing students’ ability to synthesize information and distill it into a concise new form” Pitler et al., 2007, p.119). While summarizing and note taking, students must be able to decide and analyze what information to delete, substitute and keep (Pitler et al., 2007).  For many students, summarizing and note taking can be a challenge.  Fortunately, technologies such as word processing applications, organizing and brainstorming software, and a multitude of web resources are now available to aid students in this process (Pitler et. al., 2007).  With the use of technology, students are more easily able to manipulate, add and delete information.

          One organizer that can help students while summarizing and note taking, is the concept map.  Concept maps are graphical tools used to organize and link knowledge (Novak & Canas, 2008).  “They included concepts, usually enclosed in circles or boxes of some type, and relationships between concepts indicated by a connecting line” (Novak & Canas, 2008, p.1).  According to Dr. Orey, concept maps replicate the network model of memory (Laureate Education, Inc., 2011).  By creating a concept map, students are better able to connect and visualize information, placing it in their long-term memory. 

            This week I created a concept map, centered on a virtual field trip to Ellis Island.  Virtual field trips, allow students and teachers to travel to desired destination within the confines of the classroom.  While constructing the concept map I first established an essential question, pertaining to the subject matter, and then determined a central node.  A node, as defined by Dr. Orey, is a box that represents one idea (Laureate Education, Inc., 2011).  To complete the concept map, I implemented the virtual field trip with a small group of students.  Students enjoyed the virtual field trip as well as the concept map activity.  With the use of the virtual field trip and concept map, students were able to learn and experience the concept, Ellis Island, while creating an episodic memory.  

            The instructional strategies presented in this week’s learning, correlate with the key principles of cognitive learning theory.  Each strategy is able to assist students in shifting information from their short-term to long-term memory, create relevant connections, and deepen understanding.  Listed, below the references, are some additional resources that I encourage you to check out, including the virtual field trip to Ellis Island!

References:

Laureate Education, Inc. (Producer). (2011). Program five: Cognitive learning theory [Video webcast]. Bridging learning theory, instruction and technology. Retrieved from http://laureate.ecollege.com/ec/crs/default.learn?CourseID=5700267&CPURL=laureate.ecollege.com&Survey=1&47=2594577&ClientNodeID=984650&coursenav=0&bhcp=1

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

Novak, J. D., & Cañas, A. J. (2008). The theory underlying concept maps and how to construct and use them, Technical Report IHMC CmapTools 2006-01 Rev 01-2008. Retrieved from the Institute for Human and Machine Cognition Web site: http://cmap.ihmc.us/Publications/ResearchPapers/TheoryUnderlyingConceptMaps.pdf

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

Additional Resources to Explore!

(Please click on the italicized links in blue)

• Virtual Field Trip to: Ellis Island! – If you would like to venture to Ellis Island please click on the term “Ellis Island” which has been linked to the scholastic virtual field trip)

• Holt Interactive Graphic Organizers – This page includes TONS of advanced graphic organizers, including a KWL (scroll to the very bottom).  You can type directly into the graphic organizers, and display them using an interactive whiteboard or projector.  You can also print the organizers out for student use.  Click “Hold Interactive Graphic Organizers” above to check it out!