monika’s w e b l o g

Theories, Models and Investigations on Learning are an immensely deep field – Where to put the focus, what to measure, and HOW?

The basic learning theories were relatively clear: constructivist vs behaviourist and cognitivist, even when the term connectivism appeared on the horizon and researchers started discussing whether this is a new theory on learning.

Then I read about the different dimensions of learning – cognitive, social, emotional, motivational. Each of them worth a deeper investigation (->how? the lame concept of grades definitely doesn’t work anymore), but each of them also interconnected to the others. While the cognitive dimension (“what have you learned in terms of acquiring new knowledge”) is relatively easy to understand for a newbie – having experienced knowledge based exams for a long time in school – social and emotional factors are much more difficult to frame, although their importance for learning can not be neglected.

When going further – focussing on research done in the field of learning with web 2.0 – a real avalange of terms and concepts breaks in:
formal, non-formal and informal learning (and a bunch of definitions about the terms);
intentional and incidental-implicit-en passant learning (differences, commonalities?);
collaborative learning, cooperative learning, social learning (?);
self directed-regulated-organised learning (differences and commonalities explained for instance by Reinmann 2009);
lifelong learning;
…

Is it possible to create a model of learning which incorporates all of these facettes – dimensions – concepts?
And, even more important: when empirically investigating learning, what do we want to make explicit? Does the description of a (learning) process imply that something is learned? Or can we measure learning just through ‘products’?
The more I read about learning, the more question marks raise in front of me.

March 9th, 2009. von Administrator. No Comments.
Kategorie: constructivist learning. .

Unfortunately, I don’t find the source which led me to this link anymore, after a long time of browsing today. Sorry.
Anyway, the Konstruktiver Methodenpool (“Pool of Constructive Methods“) by Kersten Reich
“should help to design teaching and learning lerner-effective (lernerwirksam) and action-oriented (handlungsorientierend). The display of all constructive methods includes a focus on their role in constructivist didactics.”
(Free translation from Konstruktive Methoden)

Although the term constructivist didactics contains for me some contradiction in itself, I like this overview, the presentation of various constructivist approaches in learning, some more theoretical approaches on constructivism on the start page.

January 17th, 2008. von Administrator. (1) Comment.
Kategorie: constructivist learning. .

As I am working on my thesis masterplan, I realise two things:
The need to clearly define and distinguish constructivist learning from informal learning;
The question if and how, in a pure constructivist approach, any findings on learning in informal contexts can be applied on formal education (instructional design, assessment etc).

Shalni Gulati writes in his paper “Constructivism and emerging online learning pedagogy: a discussion for formal to acknowledge and promote the informal”
[via E-Learning 2.0):

“Enforcing requirements over participation by defining what is to be discussed and by controlling the time-scale of discussion, formal education remains situated in the objectivist worldview, maintaining control over the learning processes and limiting opportunities for democratic and radical participation. Emphasis on participation in online discussions, accounted-for by the postings and contributions, rewards participatory behaviour. In contrast, “lurking” or silent online behaviour is punished resulting in deduction of the final mark.”
…
“Formal education and structure is not all bad, but it is the control it imposes on learning and the power influences that prevent learner autonomy during learning experiences, which needs to be understood. A greater understanding of informal learning that goes on in online learning contexts and the complex issues enacted by enforced formal participation, may help us see the importance of immeasurable, implicit and personal learning experiences in formal learning. Joining up of formal pedagogy with informal learning could allow for more diverse learning opportunities that do not rely on outcome and only what is seen, but instil in the learner the ability to construe and critically understand the world around them.”

I am investigating an online informal (learning) place. After reading the article, I wonder if it is a contradiction in itself to apply findings to a formal context in a second step? Should the informal context just be left as it is, perhaps being complemented with more (online) informal places?

December 14th, 2007. von Administrator. (1) Comment.
Kategorie: constructivist learning. .

I came across this research project while browsing through Wilfred Rubens‘ Online Educa 2007 conference impressions, fascinating me as much for the way it was set up as for the results it came to.

Sugata Mitra has been, since 1999, leading
“A set of experiments that set out to investigate the processes by which children self-instruct each other in skill areas. The experiments involve constructing outdoor Internet kiosks in rural and semi-urban areas, particularly where economically disadvantaged children live. The children are exposed to the technology with no instruction whatsoever. It is observed that they reach close to the levels of city children with no difficulty. Additional effects such as management skills, social skills, behaviour changes and acquisition of the English language has been observed as well.”
(Source: http://www.ncl.ac.uk/ecls/staff/profile/sugata.mitra)

The initial experiments are also known as “hole in the wall”-experiments (starting off with a computer set up in a literal hole in a wall in South Delhi, children approaching and being surfing within a few hours).

In the paper “Acquisition of computing literacy on shared public computers: children and the “hole in the wall” (2005?), Mitra et al. describe the
“method and results of an experiment conducted to investigate whether such unsupervised group learning in shared public spaces is universal”.

In terms of research methodology, the paper is a real role model (Vorbild) on how to present an emirical study: clear hypothesis, formulation of methods and how they are developed, testing and counter-testing of data.
In terms of content, to me this is the best example about and study on constructivist learning I have encountered so far. This I find due to the “minimal invasive education” approach the researchers choose, setting up the technical infrastructure with no additional instruction. And I am really enthusiastic that they get to such positive results about the learning that happens.

December 3rd, 2007. von Administrator. No Comments.
Kategorie: constructivist learning. .

Klampfer, A. (2005) Virtuelle Portfolios im Bildungsbereich. Available from: http://teaching.eduhi.at/alfredklampfer/eportfolios_klampfer.pdf. [Last accessed: 7 May 2006].

Content:
The article gives a good overview on the subject. It starts with a definition of portfolios (taking into account portfolios for artists and architects- where I can refer to with my ten year experience of creative-work-porfolios…), followed by various types of ePortfolios (showcase, working, assessment), and a very short overview of possible software. He draws a theoretical framework for their justification, mainly constructivist learning theories. He describes four essential modules for a “personal learning landscape” similar to the categories by V.Hornung.

Points of question/critique:
The main purpose of reading this article was to get a deeper insight into the technological state of the art and development (to perhaps also optimize my own material). This expectation was not fulfilled, instead I have many questions:
How can we think of a life-long system, when the technological developments are changing so fast (e.g. when I think of my own first protfolio about 10 years ago)?
Necessity and difficulty of standards: How far is the discussion progressed about them?
How to find ways of representation, that are individualizable for the need of e.g. a creative person? In my opinion the discussion is based too much on text based learning material.
(Article found on weiterbildungsblog.de)

See also: Objective 2010 – ePortfolio for all

May 7th, 2006. von Administrator. No Comments.
Kategorie: constructivist learning. .

Prensky, M. (2006) Don’t Bother Me Mom > I’m Learning! How Computer and Video Games Are Preparing Your Kids For the 21st Century Success > and How You Can Help!. St.Paul, Paragon House.
Literature hint of Michael Wagner

Content of special interest:
“Digital Natives share differently”, e.g. by using weblogs. The “Digital Immigrants” use weblogs as well, but in an intellecual vs. an emotional way. “Whereas Immigrant grew up thinking information was something to be kept to oneself for future advantage, Digital Natives believe they get most points from being the first to share a piece of information, particularly online.”
“How to use Games in the Classroom” in order to engage each individual student. “Bring games played outside of class into the classroom by discussions. Use the principles behind good, complex games to make some of your teaching more game-like. Play a game in class.”

Critique:
After the first reading, the extensive description on how digital natives think differently (online), gives me many points for research on the living world/context of students in HE.
The ideas on how to use games in the classroom could partially be transferred to weblogs/informal learning. How far could this go? Prensky notes just some short (and vague) thoughts on this, which could be developed further.

May 4th, 2006. von Administrator. (1) Comment.
Kategorie: constructivist learning. .

Reinmann, G. (2005) Blended Learning in der Lehrerbildung. Grundlagen für die Konzeption innovativer Lernumgebungen. Lengerich, Pabst Science Publishers.

Content extact:
(p.123) informal and institutional learning:
“The term informal learning describes learning activities which occur outside of educational institutions or systematically organized educational events, and which are not guided or controlled by teachers. (…) This form of learning is highly situated and related to concrete contexts. (…) Informal learning is self directed and interest driven.
Institutional learning describes learning processes which are organized and guided by adequately trained teachers.”
(…)
“Informal and institutional learning complement each other with their properties, chances and limits.
On one side, it is essential to design learning environments in a way that also typical characteristics of informal learning are applied. On the other side, with digital media it is possible to develop concepts which incorporate informal as well as institutional learning.”
(all translated from german)

Critique:
Informal learning is a central aspect for student weblogs. How far is she going in her thoughts of incorporating both forms of learning in the learning environment? Can this process be planned without becoming institutionalized?

April 20th, 2006. von Administrator. No Comments.
Kategorie: constructivist learning. .

Reinmann, G. (2005) Blended Learning in der Lehrerbildung. Grundlagen für die Konzeption innovativer Lernumgebungen. Lengerich, Pabst Science Publishers.

Content extract:
(p.39-70) The phenomenon of learning
Reinmann describes the complexity of learning by means of four facettes:
cognitive dimension
motivational dimension
emotional dimension
social dimension

Critique:
Particularly fascinating is her description of “flow-experiencing” (flow-erleben) as a result of the right balance between challenge and knowledge (Fähigkeit). Could this be used as a research parameter for me or is it too vague?
Important for my project is her description of the social dimension, with a focus on cooperative versus collaborative learning.

April 20th, 2006. von Administrator. No Comments.
Kategorie: constructivist learning. .

Glasersfeld, E.v. (1985) Konstruktion der Wirklichkeit und des Begriffs der Objektivität. In: Foerster, H.v., Glasersfeld, E.v., Hejl, P.M., Schmidt, S.J., Watzlawick, P. Einführung in den Konstruktivismus. 7th ed. München, Piper.

Content:
I try to make a provisorical translation to English of the following aspects discussed in this article:
- Viability
The traditional aim of observation and science is to get knowledge about the “real world” how it is. But we can not prove that what we see, hear, etc. is the real world, because we can always just perceive through our sensual organs and have no possibility to compare the perception of a thing with the postulated thing itself.
So, the aim of observation, science and theories after constructivism is the viability of these theories. Knowledge is for the constructivist just a possible, satisfying way to solve a problem, always being aware that there can be other possible, satisfying ways.
- The objective reality
If the models that we build about things, correspond to the models of others > which we find out in interactions > than these models have a higher degree of viability. If these models are viable also for other people, than we can talk of them being objective.

Critique:
The article explains in a very clear way the concept of constructivism.
The two aspects > viability and “objectivity” > are very well translatable to learning (many examples do exist already).
To establish a “context of justification” for why I think that constructivism is the best approach for learning with multimedia in computer classes, this text is perhaps too abstract. I need to go deeper into constructivist learning theories.

January 23rd, 2006. von Administrator. No Comments.
Kategorie: constructivist learning. .

Schwetz, H., Zeyringer, M., Reiter, A. (ed.) (2001) Konstruktives Lernen mit neuen Medien. Innsbruck-Wien-München-Bozen, Studienverlag.

Content:
1.Introduction about Constructivism (by E.v. Glaserfeld, H. Schwetz, etc)
Ernst v. Glasersfeld: “Aspekte einer konstruktivistischen Didaktik”
2.Constructivist oriented teaching and learning
Herbert Schwetz: “Neues Lernen für die Informationsgesellschaft” compares constructivist learning to instructional design (ideas of C.Fosnot).
He argues that the teaching philosophy determines the use/role of media in didactics (ideas of B.Weidenmann):
- Media and classical instruction
- Media and cognitive instruction
- Media and constructivism
Catherine Fosnot: ” Constructivism: Implications for the classroom” explains her concept of landscapes of learning through examples of a mathematics class.
Britta Kohler: “Problemorientiert lehren und lernen” gives an overview of the most common moderate constructivist approaches:
- Anchored Instruction
- Cognitive Apprenticeship
- Cognitive Flexibility
and their implementation in lectures according to the fields:
- design of the daily class
- design of tasks and learning material
- development of computer based learning programs
3.Aspects of the information society
4.Constructivism in didactics > examples
5.Multimedia Programming

Critique:
The basic ideas of constructivism and constructivist learning are explained in an easily understandable way. Some examples of constructivism in teaching/learning practice are in my opinion not constructivist (eg, not context-related).
The multimedia related articles lack in my opinion state-of-the-art-information of technological possibilities on one side, and a clear relation to constructivist learning/teaching on the other side. Very much focus is layed on mathematics classes, with mathematics software, with no relation to context.
This could give, though, material for critical discussion in my research project (how is constructivism applied, where does it often fail, which implications does that have to the students, how could it be done better, and what would that change for the students.)

Very nice: a DVD with interviews with v.Glasersfeld and Fosnot is added.

January 7th, 2006. von Administrator. No Comments.
Kategorie: constructivist learning. .