After having examined other learning theories over the past few weeks, my view on how I learn has shifted. I have a broader understanding of what I do as a learner, how I approach my own learning, how I prefer my learning environment to be, and most certainly have a greater understanding of various learning theories. Six weeks ago, I indicated behaviorism and cognitivism to be most closely related to how I learn. While I still do believe those theories apply to learning in my earlier days, I believe cognitivism, definitely connectivism and aspects of adult learning theory most closely describe how I best learn today.
In regards to cognitivism, as outlined by Ertmer and Newby in “Behaviorism, Cognitivism, Constructivism”, aspects of cognitivism that align with my learning tendencies and preferences include: changes between states of knowledge rather than changes in the probability of a particular response; the learner being an active participant in their own learning; understanding how to apply knowledge in a different context; and being predisposed to learning. I believe all of these aspects are involved in my current endeavors in this MSIDT program, in particular applying concepts to different set of circumstances. With the wide range of examples an circumstances offered for various concepts and theories, in addition to the wide range of backgrounds and experience brought in from other classmates, I believe I have been able to apply various concepts towards different sets of circumstances. This also has enabled me to have a greater grasp on the concept or theory involved.
In the online article “Adult Learning”, Conlan, Grabowski, and Smith write about andragogy and some primary aspects of adult learning theory that are familiar to me as a learner. The first deals with learning being problem-centered and the learner wanting to know immediate applications of the knowledge. In most everything covered in this program thus far, I always want to know the relevance of and specific applications for what is being learned. I also am primarily motivated by internal as opposed to external factors. I seek to be challenged and to better coordinate future learning environments for myself as an instructor and most certainly for the students with whom I will work. In this same article, the authors point out experiential learning. I believe this concept is definitely part of who I am as a learner. My learning necessitates a combination of “show me” and most importantly “involve me”. I not only want, but need to be a part, in a hands-on manner, of the learning in which I am involved.
The greatest impact on my own awareness of learning incorporates much of connectivism. Having not previously considered the extent and value of a learning network, in the past three weeks I’ve become aware of not only how important a learning network is, of greater significance is my preference for this type of connectivism learning environment. Siemens, in the video “Connectivism” describes connectivism as integrating social networks, information, and technology. For a long time, I have been drawn towards technological tools and environments, without a clear understanding of their impact on my learning and others. When combined with social and information components of one’s learning network, it seems as though there would be endless possibilities. Davis, Edmunds, and Kelly-Bateman, in their article “Connectivism”, stress the importance of networks and developing learning communities in order that ideas be shared with others. Siemens, in his blog “Connectivism” points out the value of blending the traditional knowledge spaces with new, emerging knowledge spaces. He continues by identifying people, or learners wanting to participate, and if allowed their space to do so, will create and innovate through their expression of their own ideas and concepts.
My final thoughts for this post are all about technology. As mentioned previously, I felt I had a predisposition towards technology. This is actually one of the reasons I ultimately chose this program and Walden University to further my academic goals. Upon completion of this past week’s content and readings in Johnson, Levine, and Smith’s “The Horizon Report”, for this course, I have determined technology will be a huge factor in my continued learning. With the emerging technologies of mobiles, cloud computing, geo-everything, personal web, semantic-aware applications, and smart objects, I will certainly be needing to learn much more about these various technological tools and more importantly, how to specifically incorporate them in my own learning and future instructional design efforts. Perhaps this is the adult learner in me! I do foresee technological tools being invaluable in my continued search for, creation of, and the sharing with others of information, and in establishing greater links between the various aspects of my learning network.
References
Conlan, J., Grabowski, S., & Smith, K. (2003). Adult learning. In M. Orey (Ed.), Emerging perspectives on learning, teaching, and technology. Retrieved from http://projects.coe.uga.edu/epltt/index.php?title=Adult_Learning.
Davis, C., Edmunds, E., & Kelly-Bateman, V. (2008). Connectivism. In M. Orey (Ed.), Emerging perspectives on learning, teaching, and technology. Retrieved from http://projects.coe.uga.edu/epltt/index.php?title=Connectivism.
Ertmer, P. A., & Newby, T. J. (1993). Behaviorism, cognitivism, constructivism: Comparing critical features from an instructional design perspective. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 6(4), 50–71.
Johnson, L., Levine, A., & Smith, R. (2009). The Horizon Report (2009 ed.). Austin, TX: The New Media Consortium. Retrieved from http://wp.nmc.org/horizon2009/.
Siemens, G. Connectivism. [Video Production]. Laureate Education, Inc.
Siemens, G. (2010, August 19). Connectivism. [Blog]. Retrieved from http://www.connectivism.ca/.
Sunday, October 24, 2010
Sunday, October 10, 2010
Reflecting on a Mind Map
In considering the mind map I created and posted on this blog October 6, I first chose the three broad areas of people, technology, and information. These three areas are most certainly not mutually exclusive. Rather, they most certainly overlap one another and have similar aspects and impacts on my learning. Initially, I thought I might have a difficult time identifying what I needed, as being enough components for this map. As I progressed, I thought of things, people, and circumstances affecting my learning that I never realized had the impact they have, or could have, if I were to place more focus and/or resources on these areas. I have never previously really considered the concept of network connections as they might relate to and affect my overall learning. Categorizing the resources that have, can, and will impact the extent to which I learn, not only gives me a clearer picture of the reasons I might more effectively learn, it better enables me to more effectively focus on these resources.
In posting my mind map to this blog last week, the first sentence in the post include “a work in progress”. The reason for this is that I felt there was much more to be included in the map. However, I was not yet certain of what these things, items, or areas might be. A very good case in point, after having viewed several of my classmates’ blogs and mind maps, is that I neglected to specifically include the experiences, people, and resources of Walden University! How could that not be an aspect of my mind map? The obvious evidently escaped me! This led me to wonder what other obvious items needed to be included.
This personal learning network definitely supports the viewpoints of connectivism. In the video “Connectivism” (Siemens), the integration of technology, social networks, and information is how connectivism is identified. Each of these items is what my map encompasses. Although, my current social network components are primarily real-time based, as identified on the left portion of the map, I do anticipate an expansion of this network into digital social network areas, as identified on the lower right portion of the map. In thinking about the details of the map, there are continued links with Siemens’ video in the following ways: knowledge is distributed across these components; there clearly exists a broader learning environment than just me as a learner; information is definitely abundant and my “offloading” is primarily directed towards technology; and it most certainly is rich in technology.
My learning definitely does not consist solely of a book, lamp, and chair! Access to the world, thank you Internet, is an extremely important factor. The use of the technology area on my map, enables me to obtain items from the information area on my map, which becomes a part of my communications with people on the left side of my map. This capability is the primary reason the way I now learn has changed. The hardware and software available to me, and that I am able to stay current with these tools, allow for greater efficiency and effectiveness in learning, in addition to greater breadth and depth of learning. The one specific digital tool making the most significant difference for me is my laptop. Learning goes where I go! It does not remain in a book, in a classroom, or with a person. I have constant access to people and information. When questions arise, my first recourse is to go online and research answers to the question. I would like to point out, when considering Prensky’s two definitions of generational learners, in “Timeline and the History of Learning”, while I technically fall into the “digital immigrant” category (either using the 1970 or 1965 cut-off year) I personally would like to place myself in the “digital native” category in that I believe I hold a strong aptitude regarding technology, and have always felt my technological skill set was quite proficient. (It really isn’t a denial of my age!)
This map also supports connectivism viewpoints as identified in the online article, “Connectivism” (Davis, Edmunds, and Kelly-Bateman. 2008). In this article, the authors point out the imperative nature of having the ability to identify what is and is not important information. In my earlier example of going online to search for answers to a question, I must be able to efficiently sift through the results of my search, and identify beneficial information. These authors also identify learning to occur when prior knowledge, perception, reality, comprehension, and flexibility come together. My mind map, in its present form, might visually imply the components do not interrelate. Perhaps it would be more accurate to detach each component, place them in a mind map melting pot, stir them up, and pour them out on a page … with continued animation, to convey the fluidity with which the components interact. In doing so, this could more clearly demonstrate my mind map including pieces of each of the three components of connectivism as Davis, Edmunds, and Kelly-Bateman (2008) outline. These components being, chaos theory, the importance of networking, and the relationship between complexity and self-organization.
Finally, I would like to express my definite agreement with two points in this week’s blog reading, “Connectivism” (Siemens, 2010).
Point one: “There is value of blending traditional with emergent knowledge spaces”.
Point two: “Learners will create and innovate if they can express ideas and concepts in their own spaces and through their own expertise”.
Taking into consideration the learners, content, and specific set of learning goals, the environment in which to allow these two points to occur needs only be designed! Perhaps easier said than done, at least for me now. However, this will be revisited in the future!
References:
Davis, C., Edmunds, E., & Kelly-Bateman, V. (2008). Connectivism. In M. Orey (Ed.), Emerging perspectives on learning, teaching, and technology. Retrieved from http://projects.coe.uga.edu/epltt/index.php?title=Connectivism.
Siemens, G. Connectivism. [Video Production]. Laureate Education, Inc.
Siemens, G. (2010, August 19). Connectivism. [Blog]. Retrieved from http://www.connectivism.ca/
Timeline of the History of Learning. [Flash Media Program]. Laureate Education, Inc. Retrieved from http://mym.cdn.laureate-media.com/Walden/EDUC/6115/01/mm/tec_timeline.html
In posting my mind map to this blog last week, the first sentence in the post include “a work in progress”. The reason for this is that I felt there was much more to be included in the map. However, I was not yet certain of what these things, items, or areas might be. A very good case in point, after having viewed several of my classmates’ blogs and mind maps, is that I neglected to specifically include the experiences, people, and resources of Walden University! How could that not be an aspect of my mind map? The obvious evidently escaped me! This led me to wonder what other obvious items needed to be included.
This personal learning network definitely supports the viewpoints of connectivism. In the video “Connectivism” (Siemens), the integration of technology, social networks, and information is how connectivism is identified. Each of these items is what my map encompasses. Although, my current social network components are primarily real-time based, as identified on the left portion of the map, I do anticipate an expansion of this network into digital social network areas, as identified on the lower right portion of the map. In thinking about the details of the map, there are continued links with Siemens’ video in the following ways: knowledge is distributed across these components; there clearly exists a broader learning environment than just me as a learner; information is definitely abundant and my “offloading” is primarily directed towards technology; and it most certainly is rich in technology.
My learning definitely does not consist solely of a book, lamp, and chair! Access to the world, thank you Internet, is an extremely important factor. The use of the technology area on my map, enables me to obtain items from the information area on my map, which becomes a part of my communications with people on the left side of my map. This capability is the primary reason the way I now learn has changed. The hardware and software available to me, and that I am able to stay current with these tools, allow for greater efficiency and effectiveness in learning, in addition to greater breadth and depth of learning. The one specific digital tool making the most significant difference for me is my laptop. Learning goes where I go! It does not remain in a book, in a classroom, or with a person. I have constant access to people and information. When questions arise, my first recourse is to go online and research answers to the question. I would like to point out, when considering Prensky’s two definitions of generational learners, in “Timeline and the History of Learning”, while I technically fall into the “digital immigrant” category (either using the 1970 or 1965 cut-off year) I personally would like to place myself in the “digital native” category in that I believe I hold a strong aptitude regarding technology, and have always felt my technological skill set was quite proficient. (It really isn’t a denial of my age!)
This map also supports connectivism viewpoints as identified in the online article, “Connectivism” (Davis, Edmunds, and Kelly-Bateman. 2008). In this article, the authors point out the imperative nature of having the ability to identify what is and is not important information. In my earlier example of going online to search for answers to a question, I must be able to efficiently sift through the results of my search, and identify beneficial information. These authors also identify learning to occur when prior knowledge, perception, reality, comprehension, and flexibility come together. My mind map, in its present form, might visually imply the components do not interrelate. Perhaps it would be more accurate to detach each component, place them in a mind map melting pot, stir them up, and pour them out on a page … with continued animation, to convey the fluidity with which the components interact. In doing so, this could more clearly demonstrate my mind map including pieces of each of the three components of connectivism as Davis, Edmunds, and Kelly-Bateman (2008) outline. These components being, chaos theory, the importance of networking, and the relationship between complexity and self-organization.
Finally, I would like to express my definite agreement with two points in this week’s blog reading, “Connectivism” (Siemens, 2010).
Point one: “There is value of blending traditional with emergent knowledge spaces”.
Point two: “Learners will create and innovate if they can express ideas and concepts in their own spaces and through their own expertise”.
Taking into consideration the learners, content, and specific set of learning goals, the environment in which to allow these two points to occur needs only be designed! Perhaps easier said than done, at least for me now. However, this will be revisited in the future!
References:
Davis, C., Edmunds, E., & Kelly-Bateman, V. (2008). Connectivism. In M. Orey (Ed.), Emerging perspectives on learning, teaching, and technology. Retrieved from http://projects.coe.uga.edu/epltt/index.php?title=Connectivism.
Siemens, G. Connectivism. [Video Production]. Laureate Education, Inc.
Siemens, G. (2010, August 19). Connectivism. [Blog]. Retrieved from http://www.connectivism.ca/
Timeline of the History of Learning. [Flash Media Program]. Laureate Education, Inc. Retrieved from http://mym.cdn.laureate-media.com/Walden/EDUC/6115/01/mm/tec_timeline.html
Wednesday, October 6, 2010
Connectivism
Below is my current mind map, a definite work in progress! Some items are “older” than others! Some are “newer” to my learning network. Others will be part of my “future” learning network as I progress. Additional details regarding the items on the map will soon be provided. As always, I look forward to learning more!
(If you click on the jpg, it should enlarge to a readable size.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)