Embedded Files
The seventh and final destination on my first European vacation lands me in Germany! Similarly, in September 2010, I find myself in my seventh and final core course in the MET program ETEC 512: Learning Theories in the Classroom! These final destinations hold many exciting memories and learning experiences!
I was able to reflect on how I learn and the variety of different ways people learn in this course by learning about other learning theories. Vygotsky, Bruner & Piaget were instrumental in shaping my ideas about Social Learning Theory, Situated Cognition and Cognitive Learning Theories as well as Constructivism. As a result, I was able to apply my learning of constructivism from 530 to the other learning theories. “Like Social Learning Theorists and Constructivists, I also believe that learning is a highly social process that can be distributed among individuals, time, artefacts, tools, and one’s environment (Miller, 2002)” (Tutkaluk, 2010).
When studying Bandura, I found that I identified with using many of the strategies he describes, especially the modeling. I am the new Technology Implementation Leader for my school (courtesy of my skills acquired through the MET program) and this role includes working with peers and guiding them through step by step processes of using new technologies and programs. By modeling the use of these technologies I am enhancing their learning and my own (Bandura, 1961). The Social Learning Theory combines using goal setting and building self-confidence and self-efficacy through guiding students (my colleagues) through the tasks providing encouragement and feedback while modeling correct behaviours and showing them how to avoid common “pitfalls” and problems (Schunk, 2008). Through this process learners learn how to constructively and productively self-judge, self-evaluate, self- observe, set goals and self-reinforce (Bandura, 1961). By viewing themselves as capable and competent learners, the SLT allows learners to take risks with guidance and support along the way instead of just performing for a reward (necessary in some learning situations) (Schunk, 2008).
As I have three favourite cities in Germany: Freiburg, Heidelberg and Frankfurt, accordingly I have selected three artifacts from this course:
1. Freiburg - CMap – The Evolution of my CMap: Learning Theories
2. Heidelberg - Personal Learning Theory – Initial Draft & Final Draft
3. Frankfurt - Group Project: Digital Module - Wiki: Cognitive Approaches
Frankfurt - Group Wiki Project Reflection
My group decided to use a PBworks wiki to display our module so this was familiar territory for me. This was an interesting group to work with. For each of the social learning theories we targeted, the social environment is of critical importance (Nardi, 1995; Spasser, 1999; Hutchins, 2000; Driscoll, 2005). Interactions between the individual and the environment, including other individuals, artifacts, and activity are essential to create the learning context. Group learning exemplifies this social learning context, although not without its challenges. Collaboration and sharing is a proven strategy to embed and solidify learning (Driscoll, 2005). As a small group, it was easier for us to share experiences, personal insights, and ideas. We experienced negotiating and compromising in our collaboration; therefore, it took us much more time to write a 300 word essay than any one member would have been able to do independently, but of course the result is more comprehensive.
Group learning, in accordance with Constructivist theory, can be exceptionally beneficial, not to mention an enjoyable way to learn. However, as is also true with group learning, it has the additional challenges of requiring time and conflict management, scheduling, and participation of all members. Equity is often an issue and our experience in this group was no different. But this was my first encounter with a dysfunctional group. During our group work, a conflict occurred as one of our group members was not available to participate or communicate with us. As a result, the unexpected workload became unequally distributed to the rest of the group members. As a group, we tried to support our group member in the resolution of this conflict. We had a number of issues regarding fairness, equity, involvement, communication, and inclusive credit. We worked out some of the more difficult parts with our group member to a solution we all were comfortable with. We recognize that, as difficult as it was for us to go on without him while also struggling with having a group member who was not participating, we were wondering and concerned for our missing group member. We also had to realize that it is also difficult to be in his shoes, having to face some frustrations and complaints and take necessary steps towards retribution so that the group can proceed.
Interestingly, having agreed with Nardi (1995) that Activity Theory is best for examining learning in context, we were able to apply conflict and contradiction as a learning paradigm (Spasser, 1999). I can now say that, indeed, from this experience, conflict can enhance learning. With different backgrounds, each member looks at the way we find the right approach to settling conflicts differently. However, I think we all learned that open communication, honesty and respect among members are key elements. A healthy climate can then emerge and result in effective process, better group product and developmental growth among members. I think we all grew from this learning experience and group dynamic.
References
Bandura, A. Ross, D., & Ross, S. A. (1961). Transmission of Aggression through imitation of aggressive models. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 63, 575-582. Available online at: http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Bandura/bobo.htm
Driscoll. M.P. (2005). Psychology of Learning for Instruction (pp. 153-182; Ch. 5 – Situated Cognition), (pp. 227-244; Ch. 7 – Interactional Theories of Cognitive Development), (pp. 384-407; Ch. 11 – Constructivism). Toronto, ON: Pearson. ETEC 512 CCM; UBC Bookstore.
Hutchins, E. (2000). Distributed cognition. Retrieved 11/07, 2010, from http://eclectic.ss.uci.edu/~drwhite/Anthro179a/DistributedCognition.pdf.
Miller, P. H. (2002). Theories of Developmental Psychology, 4th Ed. (pp. 367-396; Vygotsky’s Socio-Cultural Approach). New York: Worth. ETEC 512 CCM; UBC Bookstore.
Nardi, B. A. (1995). Studying context: A comparison of activity theory, situated action models, and distrubuted cognition. In Context and consciousness: Activity theory and human-computer interaction (B. A. Nardi ed., pp. 35-52). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Novak, J. D. (1998). Learning, Creating, and Using Knowledge: Concept Maps as Facilitative Tools in Schools and Corporations (pp. 49-78; ch 5 – Ausubel’s Assimilation Learning Theory). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. ETEC 512 CCM; UBC Bookstore.
Palloff, R. M.; Pratt, K. (1999). Building learning communities in cyberspace: effective strategies for
the online classroom. SanFrancisco: Jossey-Bass.
Schunk, D. H. (2008). Social cognitive theory (ch. 3). Learning theories: An educational perspective. ETEC 512 CCM; UBC Bookstore.
Spasser, M. A. (1999). Informing information science: The case for activity theory. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 50, 1136-1138. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-4571(1999)50:12<1136::AID-ASI17>3.0.CO;2-0
Tutkaluk, E. (2010). Personal Learning Theory. Unpublished graduate essay, University of British Columbia, Vancouver.
Page updated
Google Sites
Report abuse