Assignment 1 - Learning design brief

The following entry is my Assignment 1 submission - a conclusion of the learning design brief, synthesized from my learning and reflections in previous posts. The restriction of the 1000 word limit has seen, by necessity, a great deal of editing and less comprehensive coverage of the topic as a result.  Anyway...no sour grapes here!  Wish me luck!    

Assignment 1 - Learning design brief

My learning experiences to date within this course – ICTs for Learning Design – (a post-graduate course in teacher training at CQUniversity) have been challenging and insightful.  This course is focused on learning theories in practice and integrating potentials of modern Information Communication Technologies (ICTs) into teaching design, by using: blogs, wikis and (to a far lesser extent) websites.  As a group of learner-teachers who are learning about learning - or meta-learning -, students participated in activities catering for diversity of experiences within the cohort.  Notably, a clarion importance of meta-learning for professional teacher training is emphasized by; Dembo (cited in Pui-wah, 2008, p.85) – ‘…putting our focus on preparing teachers to learn how to teach is not enough; future teachers also should learn how to learn.’ –and Hammerness (cited in Pui-wah, 2008, p.85): ‘…effective teachers need to be meta-learners who can also take charge of their own learning.’

  The main active learning activities were; a profile wiki, a learning theories wiki and a mobile phones wiki.  The main reflective activity was creating and using a blog.  Some embraced the activities; some were daunted or even afraid of what the technologies or theories discussed means to pre-service-teachers.  However, the conclusions I’ve made through reflections are (summarily):

• Meta-learning is essential for modern teaching where change is a constant
• Reflection is an important learning strategy for pre-service and professional teachers to enhance skill in learning design
• Learning is a diverse experience; diversity of experience and learning features in all cohorts
• Learning theories are put into practice in class contexts
• Professional teachers develop a toolkit of engaging teaching strategies catering for diversity of learner profiles, all with potentially individualized learning strengths
• Constructivist learning projects are; engaging of students by encouraging experiential learning, are inherently challenging although non-teacher-centric, yet are also a collaborative platform for students learning skills which solo efforts may not provide access to
• Modern and emerging ICTs hold significant potential as engaging teaching tools
• Reflection on mental scaffolds for Web 2.0 applications by pre-service teachers, combined with concepts such as Bloom’s taxonomy of teaching classifications or other learning theories, conduce an integrated e-learning design framework for potentially successful teaching utilization of modern ICTs.

Genuine and critical reflective practices are vital for the professional development of teachers (Harford & MacRuairc, 2008, p.1890).  Reflections on own past learning began the task of pre-service teachers to reflect on their learning activities in a self-generated web-log (blog) and encourage good reflective habits.  Beyond apprehensions of publicly accessible (or restricted) reflections, blogs invite scrutiny and commentary of peers and lecturers/tutors alike, but often self-review is central to reflective practice.  Reflections in a blog put student commentary into the shared domain of Web 2.0 tools, -

…sometimes referred to as the “read/write Web”, provides online users with interactive services, in which they have control over their own data and information. (Madden & Fox; Maloney; cited in Ajjan & Hartshorne, 2008, p.71)

Control over learning activity, such as student inputs in wiki activities, empowers students, effectively engaging student ownership of participation in the learning (inter)activity.  Traditional approaches to learning demand student compliance without offering student input or an active experience, because loci of control rested in the teacher.  Ethridge (et al, 2009) observes: ‘Experiential learning has become an essential part of many educational settings from infancy through adulthood.’  However, readiness to assume control over self-directed experiential learning depends upon individual perceptions, and thus, the diversity of experiences in learner cohort demand appreciation by modern teachers.   As Moss (2008, p.219) illuminates diversity in active learning:

In experiential education, it is apparent that students bring their own perceptions to their activities. These perceptions are largely a result of their cultural identity. One’s cultural identity influences one’s definition of curriculum, instruction, and education. Reflection and reciprocity are important concepts in the field of service-learning and experiential education.

Essentially, a ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach to teaching will not work, and this is equally true of teaching students with other forms of diversity e.g. socio-economic status, impairments and disabilities, intellectual development, social skills, inter-personal skills, etc.   A professional toolkit approach to learning design enables preparedness in teaching to student diversities.   Moss (2008, p.216) argues that:

... diversity study circles can be integrated as integral to education that is multicultural in the development of preservice teachers’ critical self-reflection as a bridge to developing a critical lens for classroom practice and a democratic society.

Arguably, from the toolkit as diversity study circles, other (non-ICT) strategies of many kinds may well serve teaching to diversity. However, teaching to diversity may be relevant achieved through use of modern ICTs because of their presence in young generation learners.  Also, relating to how ICTs may garner cooperation from students, and enhance learning design and pedagogy, Dearstyne (cited in Ajjan & Hartshorne, 2008, p.71) notes:

Examples of Web 2.0 participatory technologies include wikis, blogs, instant messaging, internet telephony, social bookmarking, and social networking sites. These new technologies make sharing content among users and participants much easier than in the past and change the way documents are created, used, shared, and distributed.

- Also, ‘…use of Web 2.0 technologies offer many powerful information sharing and collaboration opportunities for learners and learning’ (Ajjan & Harthorne, 2008, p.80).  Whilst there may always be a place for chalk/whiteboards, photocopied handouts, overhead-projections, etc, modern ICTs such as Web 2.0 tools are highly suitable for modern, techno-savvy 21^st century learners.  Because these tools are, by nature, participative and collaborative, links to constructivist learning theory were reflected upon.  The functionality of wikis in learning design shows promise, but will only be truly assessable in actual class contexts.

In the classroom, the constructivist view of learning can point towards a number of different teaching practices. In the most general sense, it usually means encouraging students to use active techniques (experiments, real-world problem solving) to create more knowledge and then to reflect on and talk about what they are doing and how their understanding is changing. (Educational Broadcasting Corporation, 2004)

The course wikis did have some technical glitches, but wikis are edit-able and the history function allows reversals of edits to be made, back to any edit point.  But the learning goal was not simply ‘how to use a wiki’.  Rather recognizing a complex of benefits including; in the constructivist learning and problem solving, about ICTs in learning design through practical contextualization of learning theories, interpersonal skills, new knowledge acquired through collaboration with inputs from peers and lecturer.    Usefully, O’Leary (cited in Kear, et al, 2010, p.219) defines wikis thus:

A wiki is a browser-based software tool which enables users to collaboratively write, edit and link HTML-based documents. Wikis also provide a history facility to keep track of the modifications made by different users, and to enable changes to be reversed if necessary.  Wiki pages can be created and edited by using simple text editing facilities that are provided as part of the wiki software. The original philosophy of wikis was one of complete openness, with any web user able to modify the content. However, wikis can also be set up so that only certain users can access or edit the pages.

The profile wiki activity required students to post a profile about their self to the profile wiki.  Students had to follow written instructions, navigate to the wiki site, leave their profile for other students to read and potentially choose from among the profiles a partner for the later learning theory wiki activity. Whilst pairing was not always successful, the task was then to develop a wiki-posted PMI (plus, minus, interesting, an activity in itself collaborative, constructivist) of one learning theories from the list.    The collaborative constructivist activity of the learning theories wiki produced a communal resource for students to digest and therefore self-exploring students drew from that like water from a ‘knowledge well’. 

Whilst delving into the wiki analysis was precipitated by self-directed navigation towards to each wiki-site it was my blog reflections which etched potential teaching utility of wikis into my mind and affirmed the exercise was collaborative constructivist.  As Ethridge & Branscomb (2009, p.407) assert:    

For a transformation in understanding to truly occur, direct experience must be paired with reflection to facilitate and reinforce learning. 

A term, ‘scaffolding’ (used throughout course materials), is a metaphor clearly drawing upon industrial imagery of strengthening structures adding support to buildings during construction or under repair.  Interestingly, teaching scaffolds are described as: ‘…a form of support for the development and learning of children and young people’ (Rasmussen, cited in Verenikina, 2010, p.5) and how 'teachers or peers supply students with the tools they need in order to learn’ (Jacobs, cited in Verenikina, 2010, p.5).  Importantly, scaffolding is linked with Vygotsky’s learning theory on the Zone of Proximal Development, ‘…the distance between what a person can do with and without help’ which distinguishes between student’s actual vs. potential level of independence (Verenikina, 2010, pp.3-4).  Consider though, Verenikina’s (2010, p. 6) assertion of limits to the scaffold metaphor:

As the scaffolding metaphor provides an easy to grasp justification of teacher intervention in learning, it can be a hindrance rather than a help for children's development depending on the context of its use.

A given threshold for an intervention point may only be appreciated in context of real-world application, such as our oncoming EPL (Embedded Professional Learning) practicum periods.  Yet, a scaffold maybe as simple as a verbal connecting question ‘Johnny, what do you think of Jenny’s answer to the question?’ or ‘Group B, it appears Group A has chosen the geography of country X to research, so which countries are you thinking of choosing for your research?’  Some scaffolds may support learners to achieve independent capability, yet some do not.  For me the concept map became more helpful in supporting my reflections en route to this conclusion than less the written reflections scaffold that required decoding to apply.  De Bono's Hats (1992) served as a scaffold for the last wiki on mobile phones, which effectively saw perceptions evolve by virtue of different perspectives in each hat.   No doubt trial and error is a key to assessing a scaffolds worth in real-world, class-based contexts.  Note, that rather than abandon the scaffold-metaphor, Verenikina (2010, pp.3-4) identifies some risk and affirms scaffold-Vygotskian-Piagetian links:

… it is essential to keep in mind that a literal interpretation of the scaffolding metaphor might lead to a narrow view of child-teacher interaction and an image of the child as a passive recipient of a teacher's direct instruction.  This falls far behind the Vygotskian idea of the ZPD and the Piagetian view of the child as an active self-explorer.

Above: An integrated eLearning framework, Adapted by Paul Hilder

from ‘Engagement Theory’(Kearsley & Shneiderman, 1999) & ‘Bloom’s Taxonomy of Learning Domains’ (Bloom, 1956)

Another wiki task was development of an eLearning framework (pictured above), as informed by Kearsley’s and Schneiderman’s engagement theory (1999) & Bloom’s (1956) revised Taxonomy of Learning Domains.  Essentially the ‘relate-create-donate’ learning phases of engagement theory are compatible with Bloom’s revised domains (as notional subsets: creating-evaluating, analyzing-applying, and understanding-remembering).  The task of considering the implementation of wikis (or other ICTs) was scaffolded by these learning concepts.  The insertion of the compatible phase subsets (although somewhat subjective in practice to the context applied) onto the picture of working cogs struck a chord in my mind in that each cog-phase are linked and integrated into a working apparatus.  If the whole machine doesn’t work (successful constructivist learning), then the integrated links have not been achieved in the teaching.  One could have used a more complicated diagram (e.g. a computer schematic, with inputs, applications, outputs, etc) to visually convey the connections of learning activities through each phase, but the cogs presented a more accessible visual concept.
In summary, essentially my aim is to improve my own meta-learning, develop my own pedagogical toolkit and realistically trial my eLearning framework io utilize ICTs to greater learning benefit of my future students during the EPL period.

References                         

Ajjan, H, & Hartshorne, R, 2008, ‘Investigating faculty decisions to adopt Web 2.0 technologies: Theory and Empirical tests’, The Internet and Higher Education, Volume 11, Issue 2, 2008, pp. 71-80, date accessed: 20/3/2011, accessibility:

http://www.sciencedirect.com.ezproxy.cqu.edu.au/science?_ob=MImg&_imagekey=B6W4X-4SHF4R2-2-5&_cdi=6554&_user=409397&_pii=S1096751608000225&_origin=search&_zone=rslt_list_item&_coverDate=12%2F31%2F2008&_sk=999889997&wchp=dGLzVzz-zSkzS&md5=3b21c3c28dfc2da0f0fb867fc72d53f6&ie=/sdarticle.pdf

Bloom, B, 1956, Bloom's Taxonomy of Learning Domains, date accessed: 20/3/2011,accessibility: http://www.nwlink.com/~donclark/hrd/bloom.html#cognitive

De Bono, E, 1992, Edward De Bono's Six Thinking Hats, Education Queensland website, accessed: 17/3/2011, accessibility: http://www.kurwongbss.eq.edu.au/thinking/Hats/hats.htm

Educational Broadcast Online, 2004, Constructivism as a Paradigm for Teaching and Learning: Concept to Classroom, Thirteen Ed Online, viewed: 7/3/2011, accessed: http://www.thirteen.org/edonline/concept2class/constructivism/credit.html  

Ethridge, E & Branscomb, K R, 2009, ‘Learning through action: Parallel learning processes in children and adults’, Teaching and Teacher Education, Volume 25, Issue 3, pp.400-408, date accessed: 20/3/2011, accessibility: http://www.sciencedirect.com.ezproxy.cqu.edu.au/science?_ob=MImg&_imagekey=B6VD8-4TRR8SP-3-1&_cdi=5976&_user=409397&_pii=S0742051X08001595&_origin=search&_zone=rslt_list_item&_coverDate=04%2F30%2F2009&_sk=999749996&wchp=dGLbVtb-zSkzV&md5=cb725fc12ae2513fa310af02bc2a46f7&ie=/sdarticle.pdf

Harford, J & MacRuairc, G, 2008, ‘Engaging student teachers in meaningful reflective practice’,
Teaching and Teacher Education, Volume 24, Issue 7, pp.1884-1892, date accessed 20/3/2011, accessibility: http://www.sciencedirect.com.ezproxy.cqu.edu.au/science?_ob=MImg&_imagekey=B6VD8-4S4S5M8-1-3&_cdi=5976&_user=409397&_pii=S0742051X08000255&_origin=search&_zone=rslt_list_item&_coverDate=10%2F31%2F2008&_sk=999759992&wchp=dGLbVzW-zSkzS&md5=0f55e6f3b8413ea3f02d4084bdaf4346&ie=/sdarticle.pdf

Kear, K, Woodthorpe, J, Robertson, S, & Hutchison, M, 2010, ‘From forums to wikis: Perspectives on tools for collaboration’, The Internet and Higher Education, Volume 13, Issue 4, pp.218-225, date accessed: 20/3/2011, accessibility: http://www.sciencedirect.com.ezproxy.cqu.edu.au/science?_ob=ArticleListURL&_method=list&_ArticleListID=1693010998&_st=13&view=c&_acct=C000019483&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=409397&md5=fff443d180d0d05d128563e93271a886&searchtype=a

Kearsley, G & Shneiderman, B, 1999, Engagement Theory: A framework for technology-based teaching and learning, date accessed:17/3/2011, accessibility: http://home.sprynet.com/~gkearsley/engage.htm

Moss, G, 2006, Diversity study circles in teacher education practice: An experiential learning project,

Indiana University—Purdue University Fort Wayne, IN, USA, date accessed: 20/3/2011, accessibility: http://www.sciencedirect.com.ezproxy.cqu.edu.au/science?_ob=MImg&_imagekey=B6VD8-4MJS02K-1-1&_cdi=5976&_user=409397&_pii=S0742051X06001600&_origin=search&_zone=rslt_list_item&_coverDate=01%2F31%2F2008&_sk=999759998&wchp=dGLzVtb-zSkWA&md5=f04d9f0009cad3eff92b1a13b7a3fa18&ie=/sdarticle.pdf

Pui-wah, D C, 2008, ‘Meta-learning ability – a crucial component for the professional development of teachers in a changing context’, Teacher Development; Vol. 12 Issue 1, p85-95, date accessed: 20/3/2011, availability: http://web.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.cqu.edu.au/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?hid=122&sid=fd85c095-77aa-45d8-b69b-407da2e6c925%40sessionmgr113&vid=12

Verenikina, I, 2010, Understanding Scaffolding and the ZPD in Educational Research, Faculty of Education, University of Wollongong, NSW, Australia, date accessed: 15/3/2011, available at: http://www.aare.edu.au/03pap/ver03682.pdf