Module 6 Repsonses

In this module I responded to

Ennis Brinson:

http://ebrinsonlearningtheoryandedtech.blogspot.com/2012/05/module-6-post.html

and

David Miller

http://davidjmilleralf.blogspot.com/2012/05/module-6-learning-in-digital-world.html

Module 6: My Philosophy

My Philosophy

When thinking about my teaching philosophy, I feel I work in the progressive and constructivist mindset.  I look for ways for students to connect the facts and content I teach with their real-life experiences.  I also want students to make sense of their own world through interactions with diverse individuals and resources.  While I feel there are many uses of other learning theories like Behaviorism, I lean more towards the more modern theories.  I know that students are coming to me with a vast knowledge of internet resources and can easily access content once reserved for memorization.  I am moving towards a setting where I provide students with problems to solve instead of information to remember.  If I can help them generate content for others I will be helping them contribute to society by adding to the knowledge base.  As Siemens (2004) noted, students can easily access just about any piece of material through the use of nodes, such as the internet or through other individuals.  I now teach students how to become better consumers of this instant information so they know if they are getting quality or worthless tidbits.  I also serve in the role of guiding them to new information and stepping in to provide just-in-time information when their sources fail them.

I also feel there is a greater need for collaboration and communication between learners and instructors.  Often, teachers are given a powerful role in which they are expected to just impart information upon the masses.  In our information age, students and teachers would work better if they collaborated on what they know and not have a power struggle in the classroom.  If teachers are leery of giving up control of their traditional classroom, they might explore having a virtual world which allows them to interact with their students.  They could encourage less threatening interactions (e.g. students being scared to ask questions) through discussion postings or weekly/biweekly chats with their classes.  I think if we moved to a more informal setting outside of school hours, students would be more apt to work in the formal nature of the classroom.

Reference

Siemens, G. (2004). Connectivism: A learning theory for the digital age. Retrieved from http://elearnspace.org/Articles/connectivism.htm

Module 5 Responses

During this module I responded to:

Anetha Johnson
http://anethaj.blogspot.com/2012/05/johnson-module-5-blog.html?showComment=1336679673309#c1716100160483411222

Anwar Mohammad
http://anwar-mohammad.blogspot.com/2012/05/arcs-kellers-model-of-motivational.html?showComment=1336681573429#!/2012/05/arcs-kellers-model-of-motivational.html

Module 5 Discussion: New Technologies

One of the greatest disappointments I have faced with technology implementation was with electronic grade books at my old school. Many teachers, especially those “veterans” who had been around a while were very apprehensive about switching to an electronic format. Although the new grade book program could cut down the amount of time needed to calculate averages, assign points to students, and other administrative tasks, many teachers wanted nothing to do with the program. Their tried and true methods of calculating grades using calculators and paper grade books, was sufficient...until the mandate came down that all grades had to be computed on-line, at least on a weekly basis.




Even after the mandate that grades had to be updated weekly and placed on-line, many teachers failed to complete these tasks. Some teachers took their old methods of calculating grades via calculators and just put one grade in the grade book, called “Average.” Other teachers tried to put grades in, according to the standards provided, and made a mess of it. Students ended up with averages greater than 100% (one had a 540% grade in a class) while others had all of their kids failing because of errors. While these were some of the extreme cases, we had a wide variety of successes and failures with the new system. Most of the concerns came from confusion about the program, persistent misconceptions on what tasks were necessary to complete, and a general lack of training.


One way of improving the roll-out of this program would be to incorporate Keller's ARCS model for instruction. ARCS stands for Attention, Relevance, Confidence, and Satisfaction. Driscoll (2005) mentioned that one way of gaining and sustaining attention is to take a novel approach in presenting the material. Instead of having the traditional staff development model where all teachers observed a “techie” showing off the software, a better approach might have been to divide groups up into skill levels. For schools, this is different because we usually focus on all-in-one training solutions. By analyzing the audience and splitting them up, we might be able to target weak areas of some participants while highlighting the more advanced features for technology-proficient teachers. Usually there is no middle ground in software training. Either users already know most of the material and are bored during the presentation or they are so under-prepared that they just shut down because of their feelings of being overwhelmed.


Another area where our initial trainings failed was the lack of relevance to teachers. We were told that we just had to do the grades on computer because that was the latest mandate. A better way to present this material would be highlighting how computerizing the grades would end up saving time at the end of terms, allow for greater flexibility in assigning points, and other features that are important to teachers.


A third area where our training was lacking was building confidence with teachers. As I noted above, some teachers were fully capable of integrating the new grade book program into their daily routines. However, other teachers lacked the most basic of technology skills required to use the program. The training provided assumed that all teachers had the necessary skills, which was not the case. For those teachers who lacked the skills, a set of tasks with increasing levels of difficulty might help teachers simultaneously build the confidence and skills for the integration of the grade book. There has to be a balance of an appropriate challenge to the skill set of the teachers in order to help build their self-efficacy along with enough assistance to help them meet challenging tasks. (Driscoll, 336).


Finally, there was a lack of positive reinforcement or consequences for using the on-line grade book. The only reinforcement teachers received was empty threats of what would happen if they did not comply with the policies about putting grades on line. What lacked was a way for learners to see what happens when they put the grades on line. When struggling teachers learned that the grade book was not their enemy, they found that they indeed did save time in inputting their grades. However, there was such a challenge to get the teachers to this point, that the “reward” was nowhere worth the effort or struggle. According to Driscoll (2005), Keller’s model suggested ways to generate satisfaction when natural consequences did not exist. This would include verbal praise, recognition, or awards to those who complied. By offering some sort of positive reinforcement, teachers might be more likely to embrace the grade book compared to being threatened with disciplinary action for non-compliance.

Reference

Driscoll, M. P. (2005). Psychology of learning for instruction (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education.