Some Readings on Learning and Communication (for Feb 6, 2012)

And the reading journal continues.  This week, focusing on learning theory and communications theory.

Martinez, S., & Prensky, M. (2011). Point / Counterpoint: Is the digital native a myth? Learning & Leading with Technology, 5191(November), 6-7.

This is a magazine (ISTE Newsletter) article presenting two sides of the digital native discussion.  On the one hand there is the concept that we have to consider the increased comfort that most school age students with technology, but, as the counterpoint argues, this reality cannot give educators the permission to sit back and throw their arms in the air saying: "well, I'll never catch up with my students."  Not sure where I fall on these two sides—I can see validity in elements of each argument.

Siemens, G. (2009, July 10). Tools and our brain. [Blog]. Elearnspace.

This short blog post frames the discussion of how technology impacts the physiology of our brains. " We have a reciprocal relationship with tools: we use them, they change us." Learning changes the brain, we know this now—it seems like maybe even since this was written two years ago, the paradigm in this understanding has shifted—but maybe that is just my own sense of this.

Bennett, S., Maton, K., & Kervin, L. (2008). The “digital natives” debate: A critical review of the evidence. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(5), 775-786. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2007.00793.x

This paper seeks to chill people out about the debate about digital natives or net generation by framing the issues as proper research questions.  The authors describe the literature about these groups, and the debate over the need to radically shift education to meet the needs of these "new" students.  Then, they go on to encourage investigations that will further the discussion, for learning's sake:

 The time has come for a considered and disinterested examination of the assumptions underpinning claims about digital natives such that researchable issues can be identified and dispassionately investigated. This is not to say that young people are not engaged and interested in technology and that technology might not support effective learning. It is to call for considered and rigorous investigation that includes the perspectives of young people and their teachers, and genuinely seeks to understand the situation before proclaiming the need for widespread change.

This seems like a really important rallying cry, and could be applied to any area or current debate in the field of educational technology.  Don't make quick claims.  Have data to support change.  Don't be terrified. 

Bennett, S., & Maton, K. (2010). Beyond the “digital natives” debate: Towards a more nuanced understanding of students’ technology experiences. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 26(5), 321-331. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.2010.00360.x

Same authors, fast-forward two years.  They categorize the lit review into the following sections: Research on access to technology, research on technology-based activities, key issues for educational researchers, conceptualizing the issues, and Advancing the debate over "digital-natives".  This is a more developed presentation of the same concept.  This is a much better and richer paper, than Bennett& Matton 2008, for learning about the discussions surrounding this area of inquiry.  Of interest to me in this article is the concept "networked individualism" as a framework for investigating this issue.  The more I read this article, the more I thought that is an area in which I have real interest.  

Longman, D., & Green, K. (2011). Digital enlightenment: The myth of the disappearing teacher. CELT: Collected Essays on Learning and Teaching, 4, 121-126.

This study explores the myth that the world of ubiquitous online resources decreases the need for teachers.  It nudges us toward teacher as curator model as opposed to teacher as holder of knowledge.  The research consists of interviews with university professors in the UK.  The most important conclusion seems to be: "the teacher’s role remains central to the fulfilling engagement of students in their learning." 

An interesting element of this discussion explores the complexity of how teachers interact with the tools that facilitate learning for students (course management systems, web services, etc. . . ) This element of the discussion is interesting as it nudges us to explore the assumptions that the teachers bring to the table and continue to ask the questions about the disappearing teacher in a way that isn't just based on allowing instruction to continue as it always has.  The teacher, as we once thought of it, might just disappear, as maybe it should.    But teachers, no, I don't think they will fade from utility, and this research supports that.

                                                                                         

Jones, A. D. (2009, October 9). Learning theories and e-learning. [Blog]. The weblog of (A) David Jones: Another voice in the blogosphere.

This blog post is a lit review from a developing dissertation.  It describes the four levels of learning theory: epistemology, descriptive theories, learning theories and instructional design theories.  The concluding paragraph ends with the following synthesis of his thinking:

Dede (2008) makes a similar point that no application of technology to learning and teaching is universally good. Instead the best approach is to analyze the nature of the curriculum, students, and teachers in order to select the appropriate tools, applications, media and environments (Dede 2008).

This supports the paradigm that instructional design, good teaching, effective administration of programs is deeply local and specific to the environment, culture and all-around unique complex interplay that occurs in every individual school.  This post emphasizes this and re-applies this concept to the notion of developing e-learning environments. 

Janzen, K. J., Perry, B., & Edwards, M. (2011). Aligning the quantum perspective of learning to instructional design : Exploring the seven definitive questions. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 12(7), 56-73.

This article describes the quantum perspective of learning ("Connection, entanglement, and constant communication configure the basis of the quantum perspective of learning.") by waking the reader through the seven definitive questions. 1. How does learning occur? 2. What factors influence learning? 3. What is the role of memory? 4.  How does the transfer of knowledge occur? 5. What types of learning are best explained? 6. What is the relevance to instructional design? 7. How should instruction be structured to facilitate learning?

Reading this article makes me think that, unknowingly, I have been drawn to the quantum perspective in my own course design this year.  The whole idea is a little too Heidegger, Being in Time (aka: hard to get my head around) but when the authors do give concrete examples they are line up with what I try to do in class:

These include encouraging goal setting (both in the short and long term), self-analysis through writing/sharing, providing possibilities to extend thinking through the use of well- placed questions, the provision of multiple alternatives, joint problem finding and problem solving, offering social and emotional support, encouraging risk-taking, assisting students to find their own voices, and finally, modeling “ways of being” (p. 210).

Robinson, R., Molenda, M., & Rezabek, L. (2007). Facilitating learning. In A. Januszewski, M. Molenda & P. Harris (Eds.), Educational technology: A definition with commentary (2nd ed., pp. 15-48). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

This ACET book chapter explored the "facilitating learning" element of the definition of educational technology.  It is surprising how controversial that simple phrase can be when flushed out to its full extent.  The chapter has a useful table of the "APA's learner-centered psychological principles" from which to pull research topics.

This chapter is theoretical, but in the kind of meaningful way that it would be good to read a hundred times over.  I hope to return to it as I look more closely at learning theory and shape my thinking about both what I do as a teacher and instructional designer and what I want to do for my research. 

Dede, C. (2008). Theoretical perspectives influencing the use of information technology in teaching and learning. In J. Voogt & G. A. Knezek (Eds.), International handbook of information technology in primary and secondary education (pp. 43-62). New York, NY: Springer.

How 'bout that? This chapter was the basis for much of what I found really compelling about the blog post by Jones (2009).  So I was happy to read the original thinking.    The chapter goes through behaviorist instructional technologies, cognitivist instructional technologies and then constructivist instructional technologies.  In short, this chapter warns against the fruitless quest for the "silver bullet" and encourages a perspective based on the following world view:

To progress, the field of instructional design must recognize that learning is a human activity quite diverse in its manifestations from person to person, and even from day to day. The emphasis can then shift to developing pedagogical media that provide many alternative ways of teaching, which learners select as they engage in their educational experiences.

I am a Dede fan. Now following him on Twitter (which is how I most commonly display my respect). 

Foulger, D. (2004). Models of the Communication Process. Communication.

In this paper (which is available on Foulger's website) we were asked to focus on the two models of communication. 

First: 

And then this:

 

The question seems to be, how can education shift from the former to the latter.  This reminds me of all of the flow charts and idea diagrams that we looked at in a meeting today talking about curriculum and lesson design.  These charts are really the basis for those conversations.  Where do we begin? From where should content be generated? What is the balance of consumption and creation? This figure 6 is really useful for thinking about instructional design.  I'm going to put it on my wall, since it seems like finding this fellow on twitter is not going to happen.